Ram Sharan Maurya And Others Vs State Of U.P. And Others

,,,,,,,

Uday Umesh Lalit, J",,,,,,,

1. Except Special Leave Petition (Civil) D.No.13142 of 2020: (i) permission to file Special Leave Petition is granted in all the concerned matters; and,,,,,,,

(ii) Special Leave to Appeal is granted in all matters.,,,,,,,

2. These appeals arise out of the final judgment and order dated 06.05.2020 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court [The High Court of,,,,,,,

Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench] in Special Appeal No.207 of 2019 and all connected matters whereby the Division Bench of the High Court",,,,,,,

set aside the Order dated 29.03.2019 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No.1188(SS) of 2019 and other connected matters.,,,,,,,

These appeals, inter alia, deal with the extent of rights of Shiksha Mitras and benefits conferred upon them by the decision of this Court in State of",,,,,,,

U.P. and another vs. Anand Kumar Yadav and others (2018) 13 SCC 560.,,,,,,,

3. The facts leading to the decision of this Court in Anand Kumar Yadav (2018) 13 SCC 560 were set out in said decision as under:-,,,,,,,

“3. Brief factual matrix may be noted. The U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 (the 1972 Act) was enacted to regulate and control basic education in",,,,,,,

the State of U.P. Section 19 of the 1972 Act authorises the State Government to make rules to carry out the purpose of the Act. The U.P. Basic,,,,,,,

Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (the 1981 Rules) lay down sources of recruitment and qualification for appointment of teachers. The",,,,,,,

National Council for Teachers’ Education Act, 1993 (NCTE Act) was enacted by Parliament for planned and coordinated development for",,,,,,,

teacher education system. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (the RTE Act, 2009) was enacted by Parliament for",,,,,,,

free and compulsory education to all children of the age of 6 to 14 years. Section 23 provides for qualification for appointment of teachers. NCTE was,,,,,,,

designated as authority under Section 23(1) to lay down the qualifications for appointment of teachers.,,,,,,,

4. NCTE issued Notification dated 23-8-2010 laying down such qualifications. With regard to teachers appointed prior to the said notification, it was",,,,,,,

stated that they were required to have qualifications in terms of the National Council for Teacher Education (Determination of Minimum Qualifications,,,,,,,

for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001 (the 2001 Regulations), if the teachers were appointed on or after 3-9-2001 subject to their",,,,,,,

undergoing NCTE recognised six months’ special programme in certain situations. Teachers appointed before 3-9-2001 were required to have,,,,,,,

qualifications as per the prevalent recruitment rules. One of the requirements under the said notification is the requirement of passing Teachers,,,,,,,

Eligibility Test (TET). However, by Letter dated 8-11-2010, the Central Government sought proposals for relaxation under Section 23(2) of the RTE",,,,,,,

Act which was followed by the relaxation Order dated 10-9-2012 for certain categories of persons which was to operate till 31-3-2014. Vide Letter of,,,,,,,

NCTE dated 14-1-2011, NCTE accepted the proposal of the State of Uttar Pradesh for training of untrained graduate Shiksha Mitras by open and",,,,,,,

distance learning but it was made clear that no appointment of untrained teachers was permitted.,,,,,,,

5. In exercise of powers under the RTE Act, 2009, the RTE Rules, 2010 were framed by the Central Government. At the same time, the State of",,,,,,,

U.P. also purported to frame rules called the U.P. RTE Rules, 2011.",,,,,,,

6. Reference may now be made to the scheme under which the Shiksha Mitras were recruited. On 26-5-1999, a Government Order was issued by the",,,,,,,

State of U.P. for engagement of Shiksha Mitras (Parateacher). The purported object of the Order was to provide universal primary education and for,,,,,,,

maintenance of teacher student ratio in primary schools by hiring persons who were not duly qualified at lesser cost as against the prescribed salary of,,,,,,,

a qualified teacher. The Government Order (G.O.) stated that up to the limit of 10,000, Shiksha Mitras could be contracted for academic session 1999-",,,,,,,

2000 at honorarium of Rs 1450 per month. The salient aspects of the scheme as summed up in the impugned judgment [2015 SCC OnLine All 3997 :,,,,,,,

ILR 2015 All 1108 [Anand Kumar Yadav vs. Union of India]] of the High Court from the said G.O. were: (Anand Kumar case [2015 SCC OnLine,,,,,,,

All 3997 : ILR 2015 All 1108 [Anand Kumar Yadav vs. Union of India]], SCC OnLine All para 17)",,,,,,,

“(i) The appointment of Shiksha Mitras was to be against the payment of an honorarium;,,,,,,,

(ii) The appointment was to be for a period of eleven months renewable for satisfactory performance;,,,,,,,

(iii) The educational qualifications would be of the intermediate level;,,,,,,,

(iv) The unit of selection would be the village where the school is situated and in the event that a qualified candidate was not available in the village,",,,,,,,

the unit could be extended to the jurisdiction of the Nyaya Panchayat;,,,,,,,

(v) The services of a Shiksha Mitra could be terminated for want of satisfactory performance;,,,,,,,

(vi) Selection was to be made at the village level by the Village Education Committee; and,,,,,,,

(vii) The scheme envisaged the constitution, at the district level, of a Committee presided over by the District Magistrate and consisting, inter alia, of",,,,,,,

the Panchayat Raj Officer and the District Basic Education Officer among other members to oversee implementation.â€​,,,,,,,

7. Further G.Os. were issued by the State of U.P. including G.O. dated 1-7-2001 expanding the scheme and clarifying that the scheme was not for,,,,,,,

employment in a regular service but to provide opportunity to the rural youth to render community service.,,,,,,,

8. Even though vide Notification dated 23-8-2010, minimum statutory qualification was laid down by NCTE, the issue for relaxation under Section",,,,,,,

23(2) of the RTE Act was taken up by the Union Government for relaxation for the limited interim statutory period and if a particular State did not,,,,,,,

have adequate institutions for teachers training or did not have the adequate number of candidates during the period. The State Government, in",,,,,,,

response to the letter of the Central Government, responded by stating that it had appointed Shiksha Mitras on contractual basis who were required to",,,,,,,

be given teachers training. The Central Government issued an Order for relaxation under Section 23(2) subject to certain conditions for the period up,,,,,,,

to 31-3-2014.,,,,,,,

9. The State Government submitted a revised proposal dated 3-1-2011 envisaging giving of training to the Shiksha Mitras which was accepted by the,,,,,,,

Central Government in terms of the Letter dated 14-1-2011 for two years’ diploma in elementary education through open and distance learning,,,,,,,

mode with a clear understanding that no untrained teachers will be appointed.,,,,,,,

10. Finally, the State of U.P. took the following steps which were subject-matter of challenge before the High Court:",,,,,,,

10.1. The Notification dated 30-5-2014 amending the U.P. RTE Rules introducing Rule 16-A authorising the State Government to relax minimum,,,,,,,

educational qualifications for appointment of Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic Schools.,,,,,,,

10.2. The Notification dated 30-5-2014, amending the 1981 Rules: Rule 8 laid down revised qualifications for appointment of Assistant Master and",,,,,,,

Assistant Mistress of Junior Basic Schools which qualifications are different from the statutory qualifications under Section 23 of the RTE Act. Rule 5,,,,,,,

was amended to add Shiksha Mitras as source for recruitment of teachers in addition to the existing source of direct recruitment in accordance with,,,,,,,

the existing rules. Rule 14 was also amended to enable Shiksha Mitras to be appointed as teachers against substantive posts without having the,,,,,,,

qualifications prescribed under Section 23 of the RTE Act.,,,,,,,

10.3. G.O. dated 19-6-2013 was issued giving permission for appointment of Shiksha Mitras on the post of Assistant Teachers in primary schools,,,,,,,

without having the eligibility and qualifications in terms of the RTE Act, 2009. A time table was laid down for absorption of Shiksha Mitras as",,,,,,,

Assistant Teachers.,,,,,,,

10.4. The consequential executive orders were issued for absorption of 1,24,000 graduate Shiksha Mitras and 46,000 intermediate Shiksha Mitras.â€​",,,,,,,

… … …,,,,,,,

13. Batch of writ petitions was filed before the High Court by persons who claimed to be eligible for appointment and whose chances were affected,,,,,,,

by filling up of vacancies of teachers by regularising the Shiksha Mitras against the said vacancies……….,,,,,,,

14. Case set out in the petition was that in view of Notification issued by NCTE on 23-8-2010 laying down minimum qualification for appointment of,,,,,,,

Assistant Teacher for Classes I to VIII, the decision of the U.P. Government dated 19-6-2014 and amendments made by the U.P. Government on 30-",,,,,,,

5-2014 were in conflict with the Notification issued by NCTE on 23-8-2010 and could not, thus, be justified. TET being a mandatory qualification, the",,,,,,,

State Government could not make any appointment to the post of teacher without the said qualification. The appointments did not fall under the,,,,,,,

relaxation clause being post 23-8-2010 Notification and being not covered by the conditions for relaxation. The 1981 Rules of the State could not,,,,,,,

incorporate a provision for absorption of Shiksha Mitras in violation of law laid down by this Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC,,,,,,,

1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753 as their appointment was dehors the 1981 Rules, having not been made after following the rules for appointment of teachers.",,,,,,,

It was also submitted that the nature of appointment of Shiksha Mitras was contractual to enable them to render community service and not in terms,,,,,,,

of prescribed qualifications for appointment of teachers. Training by open and distance learning mode was relevant only for teachers validly appointed,,,,,,,

and not for contractual employees appointed dehors the rules. Moreover, 46,000 Shiksha Mitras were not even graduates which was a condition for",,,,,,,

approval by NCTE in its letter dated 14-1-2011………â€​,,,,,,,

3.1 The decision rendered by the Full Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad was dealt with as under:-,,,,,,,

“17. The findings of the High Court in brief are that having regard to the nature of appointment of Shiksha Mitras, they could not be treated as",,,,,,,

teachers in terms of the 1981 Rules. They also did not have the qualifications prescribed under the said Rules inasmuch as on the date of appointment,",,,,,,,

they did not have graduate degree nor they had basic teachers’ certificate as prescribed under the 1981 Rules. Reservation policy had also not,,,,,,,

been followed. No doubt they may have served the need of the hour, their regular appointment in violation of the requisite statutory qualification was",,,,,,,

illegal. Reference was made to earlier Full Bench judgment in Sandhya Singh v. State of U.P. (2013) 7 ADJ 1 (FB) with regard to the nature of such,,,,,,,

appointments.,,,,,,,

18. It was further held that Section 23(2) permitted relaxation of minimum qualification for appointment of teachers only for a limited period not,,,,,,,

exceeding five years and qualification for TET could not be relaxed as held by the Full Bench judgment of the High Court in Shiv Kumar Sharma v.,,,,,,,

State of U.P. 2013 SCC OnLine All 4097 : (2013) 6 ALJ 366 : 6 ADJ 310 (FB) for post-23-8-2010 appointments. Nor pre-23-8-2010 appointments,,,,,,,

could be saved unless initial appointments were to the post of teachers in terms of applicable rules as stated in the Notification dated 23-8-2010. The,,,,,,,

amendments to the State RTE Rules, 2011 and the Service Rules of 1981 were in conflict with the mandate of Section 23(2) under which power to",,,,,,,

relax the minimum qualifications was vested only with the Central Government for a limited period. Moreover, the regularisation of Shiksha Mitras as",,,,,,,

teachers was not permissible in view of the law laid down in Umadevi (3)4. The appointment of Shiksha Mitras was not as teachers nor could it be,,,,,,,

held to be merely irregular in the absence of their minimum qualifications for the post of teachers which was a distinguishing feature rendering the,,,,,,,

judgments State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari (2010) 9 SCC 247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826 and Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa,,,,,,,

(2014) 4 SCC 583 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 54 inapplicable.,,,,,,,

3.2. Affirming the view taken by the Full Bench, this Court concluded:-",,,,,,,

“28. We are in agreement with the above findings. In view of clear mandate of law statutorily requiring minimum qualification for appointment of,,,,,,,

teachers to be appointed after the date of the Notification dated 23-8-2010, there is no doubt that no appointment was permissible without such",,,,,,,

qualifications. Appointments in the present case are clearly after the said date. Relaxation provision could be invoked for a limited period or in respect,,,,,,,

of persons already appointed in terms of applicable rules relating to qualifications. The Shiksha Mitras in the present case do not fall in the category of,,,,,,,

pre 23-8-2010 Notification whose appointment could be regularised.,,,,,,,

29. Further difficulty which stares one in the face is the law laid down by this Court on regularisation of contractually appointed persons in public,,,,,,,

employment. Appointment of Shiksha Mitras was not only contractual, it was not as per qualification prescribed for a teacher nor on designation of",,,,,,,

teacher nor in pay scale of teachers. Thus, they could not be regularised as teachers. Regularisation could only be of mere irregularity. The exceptions",,,,,,,

carved out by this Court do not apply to the case of the present nature.,,,,,,,

30. In view of our conclusion that the Shiksha Mitras were never appointed as teachers as per applicable qualifications and are not covered by,,,,,,,

relaxation order under Section 23(2) of the RTE Act, they could not be appointed as teachers in breach of Section 23(1) of the said Act. The State is",,,,,,,

not competent to relax the qualifications.,,,,,,,

… … …,,,,,,,

32. On the one hand, we have the claim of 1.78 lakh persons to be regularised in violation of law, on the other hand is the duty to uphold the rule of",,,,,,,

law and also to have regard to the right of children in the age of 6 to 14 years to receive quality education from duly qualified teachers. Thus, even if",,,,,,,

for a stop-gap arrangement teaching may be by unqualified teachers, qualified teachers have to be ultimately appointed. It may be permissible to give",,,,,,,

some weightage to the experience of Shiksha Mitras or some age relaxation may be possible, mandatory qualifications cannot be dispensed with.",,,,,,,

Regularisation of Shiksha Mitras as teachers was not permissible. In view of this legal position, our answers are obvious. We do not find any error in",,,,,,,

the view [2015 SCC OnLine All 3997 : ILR 2015 All 1108 [Anand Kumar Yadav vs. Union of India]] taken by the High Court.â€​,,,,,,,

3.3 However, in the peculiar fact situation, following observations were made by this Court:-",,,,,,,

S.

No.",Exam,Existing,Proposed,,,,

1.,High School,10%,10%,,,,

2.,Intermediate,20%,20%,,,,

3.,"Graduation/

Degree",40%,40%,,,,

4.,"BTC

Training","First Division - 12

Marks (Theory)

First Division - 12

Marks (Practical)

Second Division â€

06 marks (Theory)

Second Division â€

06 marks

(Practical)

Third Division â€" 3

marks (Theory)

Third Division â€" 3

marks (Practical)","First Division

- 12

Marks

(Theory)

First Division

- 12

Marks

(Practical)

Second

Division â€

06 marks

(Theory)

Second

Division â€

06 marks

(Practical)

Third Division

â€

3 marks

(Theory)

Third Division

â€

3 marks

(Practical)",,,,

5.,"Experience

of work as

Shiksha Mitra

in the Board

Schools",,"For the work

done by them

as Shiksha

Mitra in each

complete

service year

2.5 marks per

year but

maximum

weightage is

25

marks.",,,,

(a),"(i) Mistresses of Nursery

Schools","By direct recruitment as

provided in Rule 14.",,,,,

,"(ii) Assistant Masters and

Assistant Mistresses of

Junior Basic Schools","By direct recruitment as

provided in Rule 14.",,,,,

(b),"(i) Headmistresses of

Nursery Schools","By promotion as provided in

Rule 18.",,,,,

,"(ii) Headmasters and

Headmistresses of Junior

Basic Schools","By promotion as provided in

Rule 18.",,,,,

,"(iii) Assistant Masters of

Science-Maths for Senior

Basic Schools","By promotion as provided in

Rule 18.",,,,,

,"(iv) Assistant Mistresses

of Science-

Maths for Senior Basic

Schools","By promotion as provided in

Rule 18.",,,,,

,"(v) Assistant Masters of

other than Science

Maths for Senior Basic

Schools","By promotion as provided in

Rule 18.",,,,,

,"(vi) Assistant Mistresses

of other than Science

Maths for Senior Basic

Schools","By promotion as provided in

Rule 18.",,,,,

,"(vii) Headmasters of Senior by promotion as provided in

Rule 18 Basic Schools.",,,,,,

,"(viii) Headmistresses of Senior by promotion as provided

in Rule 18 Basic Schools.",,,,,,

(ii) Assistant

Master and

Assistant

Mistresses of Junior

Basic Schools","ii.(a) Bachelors degree from a University

established by law in India or a degree

recognised by the Government equivalent

thereto together with any other training

course recognised by the Government as

equivalent thereto together with the

training qualification consisting of a Basic

Teacher’s Certificate (BTC), two

years BTC (Urdu) Vishisht BTC. Two

year Diploma in Education (Special

Education) approved by Rehabilitation

council of India or four year Degree in

Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.), two

years Diploma in Elementary Education

(by whatever name known) in

accordance with the National Council of

Teacher of Education

(Recognition, Norms and Procedure),

Regulation or any training qualifications

to be added by National Council for

Teacher Education for the recruitment of

teachers in primary education

and

teacher eligibility test passed conducted

by the Government of India and passed

Assistant Teacher recruitment

Examination conducted by the

Government.

(b) A trainee Teacher who has

completed successfully six months

special training programme in elementary

education recognized by National Council

for Teacher Education.

(c) a shikshamitra who possessed

bachelors degree from a University

established by law in India or a degree

recognised by the Government equivalent

thereto and has completed successfully

two year distant learning B.T.C. course

or basic Techer’s Certificate

(B.T.C.), Basic Teacher’s

Certificate (B.T.C.) (Urdu) or Vishisht

B.T.C. conducted by the State Council of

Educational Research and Training and

passed the Teacher Eligibility Test

conducted by the Government of India

and passed Assistant Teacher

recruitment

Examination conducted by the

Government.",,,,,,

(iii) Trainee

Teacher","iii. Bachelors degree from a University

established by law in India or a degree

recognized by the Government equivalent

thereto together with B.Ed./B.Ed.

(Special Education)/D.E.d.(Special

Education) qualification and passed the

teacher eligibility test conducted by the

Government or by the

Government of India.

However, in case of B.Ed. (Special

Education)/D.Ed.(Special Education) a

course recognised by Rehabilitation

Council of India (RCI) only shall be

considered.",,,,,,

,"Name of

Examination/

Degree",Quality points,,,,,

1.,High School,"Percentage of Marks in the examination

x 10

100",,,,,

2.,Intermediate,"Percentage of Marks in the examination

x 10

100",,,,,

3.,"Graduation

Degree","Percentage of Marks in the examination

x 10

100",,,,,

4.,"B.T.C.

Training","Percentage of Marks in the examination

x 10

100",,,,,

5.,"Assistant

Teacher

Recruitment

Examination","Percentage of Marks in the examination

x 60

100",,,,,

6.,"Weightage

Teaching

experiences

as

shikshamitra

or/as teacher

working as

such in junior

basic schools

run by Basic

Shiksha

Parishad.","2.5 marks per completed teaching year,

up to maximum 25 marks, whichever is

less.",,,,,

SUBJECT,SYLLABUS,MARKS,,,,,

Hindi Language,

Sanskrit and

English","Grammar and unread story

and poem, Grammar

Comprehension",40,,,,,

Science,"Science in daily life,

movement force, energy,

distance, light, sound,

world of creature, healthy

human body, cleanness

and nutrition,

environment and natural

resources, the goods and

state of goods.",10,,,,,

Maths,"Numeric competency,

mathematical operations,

decimal, locations valid,

variant, interest, profit-

loss, percentage division,

factor, unitary rule, general

seed

mathematics, area average

volume, ratio and all the

problems, general

Geometry, general

statistics",20,,,,,

Environment and

the

General studies","Construction of the Earth,

Rivers, Mountain, Island,

Ocean and Lives, Natural

Property, Latitude and

Longitude, Solar System,

Indian Geography, India

Freedom Movement,

Indian Social Reformer,

Constitution of India, Our

Government Arrangement,

Traffic and Road Safety,

Indian Economics and

challenges, our culture

ancestor, environment

conservation, natural

calamity management",10,,,,,

Teaching

Efficiency","The method of teaching

and efficiency, the theory

of teaching, present Indian

social and primary

education, inclusive

education, new endeavour

of the preliminary

education, educational

valuation and

measurement preliminary

education efficiency,

educational management

and administration",10,,,,,

Child Psychology,"Personal Variance, the

factors which affect the

child development,

identification of the need

of learning, the creation of

the theory of the

environment of reading

and in the class education

its practical use and merit,

special arrangement for

the handicapped

(Divyangjan) students.",10,,,,,

General

Knowledge/

Current Affairs","Important current affairs

â€" relating to the

International, National,

State the important events

place personality,

constructions,

International, relating to

the State the important

accident place, personality,

construction, International

and National Award /

Sports, Indian, culture and

Arts etc.",30,,,,,

Logic Knowledge,"Analogies, assertion and

reason, binary logic,

classification, clocks and

calendars, coded

inequalities, coding-

decoding, critical

reasoning, cubes number

series, puzzles, symbols

and notations, venn

diagrams and dice, data

interpretation, direction

sense test, grouping and

selections, inferences,

letter series.",5,,,,,

Information

Technology","Development Teaching

efficiency, Art Teaching

and in the School

Management Area

information technology

computer, internet,

smartphone, OER (Open

Educational Resources), in

the education the important

Aps, digital, the

information regarding use

of the education

materials.",5,,,,,

Life Efficiency/

Management and

Attitude","Commercial Character and

Policy, Motivation Role of

Teaching (facility giver,

listener, guider, motivator,

consultant), Constitutional

and

Humanitarian merit,

punishment and Award

arrangement and its

effective use.",10,,,,,

General and OBC Class candidates will be issued passed certificate in the Assistant Teachers Recruitment Examination.,,,,,,,

2. For the Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribes candidates the minimum qualifying marks will be 40% viz. 60 marks out of total 150 marks.,,,,,,,

3. Only by passing the Assistant Teachers Recruitment Examination will not give any right of employment to those candidates because for this,,,,,,,

appointment only this is one of the eligible measurement.â€​,,,,,,,

8. On 15.03.2018, by 22nd Amendment, 1981 Rules were amended removing the requirement of passing of ATRE from the essential qualifications",,,,,,,

contained in Rule 8. However, the requirement was retained in Rule 14 dealing with the procedure for selection of Assistant Teachers. The relevant",,,,,,,

part of Rule 8(1) dealing with Academic Qualifications for “Assistant Master and Assistant Mistresses of Junior Basic Schoolsâ€​ read as follows:-,,,,,,,

“ii. (a) Bachelors degree from a University established by law in India or a degree recognised by the Government equivalent thereto together with,,,,,,,

any other training course recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto together with the training qualification consisting of a Basic,,,,,,,

Teacher’s Certificate (BTC), two year BTC (Urdu) Vishisht BTC. Two year Diploma in Education (Special Education) approved by the",,,,,,,

Rehabilitation Council of India or four year degree in Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.), two year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever",,,,,,,

name known) in accordance with the National Council of Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2002 or any training",,,,,,,

qualifications to be added by National Council for Teacher Education for the recruitment of teachers in primary education.,,,,,,,

and,,,,,,,

teacher eligibility test passed conducted by the Government or by the Government of India.â€​,,,,,,,

Rule 14 dealing with Procedure of selection stood substituted as under:-,,,,,,,

“14(1)(a) â€" Determination of vacancies,,,,,,,

In respect of appointment, by direct recruitment to the post of Mistress of Nursery Schools and Assistant Master or Assistant Mistress of Junior Basic",,,,,,,

Schools under clause (a) of rule 5, the appointing authority shall determine the number of vacancies as also the number of vacancies to be reserved",,,,,,,

for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, and other categories under rule 9 and published in at least two",,,,,,,

leading daily newspapers having adequate circulation in the State as well as in concerned district inviting applications from candidates possessing,,,,,,,

prescribed training qualification and passed teacher eligibility test, conducted by the Government or by the Government of India and passed Assistant",,,,,,,

Techer Recruitment Examination conducted by the Government.,,,,,,,

(b) Recruitment Examination- For every notified vacancy under clause (a) for recruitment of Assistant Master or Assistant Mistress of Junior Basic,,,,,,,

School, a separate Assistant Techer Recruitment Examination shall be conducted by the Government.",,,,,,,

(c) The Government may from time to time decide to appoint candidates, who are graduates along with B.Ed/B.Ed. (Special Education)/D.Ed.",,,,,,,

(Special Education) and who have also passed teacher eligibility test conducted by the Government or by the Government of India, as trainee",,,,,,,

teachers. These candidates after appointment will have to undergo six months training programme in elementary education recognized by National,,,,,,,

Council of Teacher Education (NCTE). The appointing authority shall determine the number of vacancies as also the number to be reserved for,,,,,,,

candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, and other categories under rule 9 and advertisement would be issued",,,,,,,

in at least two leading daily news papers having adequate circulation in the State as well as in concerned district inviting applications from candidates,,,,,,,

who are graduates along with B.Ed./B.Ed. (Special Education)/D.Ed. (Special Education) and who have also passed teacher eligibility test conducted,,,,,,,

by the Government or by the Government of India and passed Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination conducted by the Government.,,,,,,,

(d) The trainee teachers, after obtaining the certificate of successful completion of six months special training in elementary education, shall be",,,,,,,

appointed as assistant teachers in junior basic schools against substantive post in regular pay-scale. The appointing authority will be duty bound to,,,,,,,

appoint the trainee teachers as assistant teachers within one month of issue of certificate of successful completion of said training.,,,,,,,

(2) Preparation of Merit List â€" The appointing authority shall scrutinize the applications received in pursuance of the advertisement under clause (a),,,,,,,

or clause (c) of sub-rule (1) and prepare a merit list of such persons as appear to possess the prescribed academic qualifications and passed Assistant,,,,,,,

Teacher Recruitment Examination be eligible for appointment.,,,,,,,

(3)(a) The names of candidates in the list prepared under sub-rule (2) in accordance with clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of rule 14 shall then be arranged in,,,,,,,

such manner that the candidate shall be arranged in accordance with the quality points and weightage as specified in the appendix-I.,,,,,,,

Provided that if two or more candidates obtain equal marks, the candidates senior in age shall be placed higher.",,,,,,,

Provided that a person working as Shiksha Mitra in Junior Basic Schools run by Basic Shiksha Parishad shall be given weightage in the recruitment of,,,,,,,

the post of Assistant Teacher, only in two consecutive Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination conducted by the Government after July 25, 2017.",,,,,,,

(b) The names of candidates in the list prepared under sub-rule (2) in accordance with clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of rule 14 shall then be arranged in,,,,,,,

such manner that the candidate shall be arranged in accordance with the quality points specified in the appendix-II:,,,,,,,

Provided that if two or more candidates obtain equal marks, the candidate senior in age shall be placed higher.",,,,,,,

(c) The names of candidates in the list prepared in accordance with clause (d) of sub-rule (1) of rule 14 for appointment as assistant teacher shall be,,,,,,,

same as the list prepared under clause (c) sub-rule (3) of rule 14 unless the candidate under the said list is unable to successfully complete the six,,,,,,,

months special training course in elementary education in his first attempt. If the candidate successfully completes the six months special training in his,,,,,,,

second and final attempt, the candidate’s name shall be placed under the names of all those candidates who have completed the said six months",,,,,,,

special training in their first attempt.,,,,,,,

(4) No person shall be eligible for appointment unless his or her name is included in the list prepared under sub-rule (2).,,,,,,,

(5) The list prepared under sub-rule (2) and arranged in accordance with clause (a) and (b) of sub-rule (3) of rule 14 shall be forwarded by the,,,,,,,

appointing authority to the selection committee.â€​,,,,,,,

9. In March, 2018, TET examination was held, in which approximately 3,86,000 candidates including about 40,000 Shiksha Mitras qualified.",,,,,,,

10. On 21.05.2018, a G.O. was issued relaxing the qualifying marks of 45-40% to 33-30% for General and Reserved categories respectively. This",,,,,,,

relaxation was challenged by filing W.P. No.20404 of 2018 by some candidates and the operation of said G.O. was stayed by the High Court vide,,,,,,,

Order dated 23.07.2018.,,,,,,,

11. On 27.05.2018 ATRE-2018 was conducted. In the results, 41,556 candidates were declared to have qualified with qualifying marks of 45-40% out",,,,,,,

of which, 40296 candidates applied for counselling and were selected for appointment on 13.08.2018. About 4500 candidates were added to this",,,,,,,

number after re-valuation process.,,,,,,,

12. On 28.06.2018, the National Council for Teachers Education (“NCTEâ€, for short) amended its OM dated 23.08.2018. The notification dated",,,,,,,

28.06.2018 was to the following effect:-,,,,,,,

“F.No.NCTE-Regl 012/16/2018.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 23 of Right of Children to Free and,,,,,,,

Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (35 of 2009) and in pursuance of notification number S.O. 750(E), dated the 31st March, 2010 issued by the",,,,,,,

Department of School Education and Literacy, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, the National Council for Teacher",,,,,,,

Education (NCTE) hereby makes the following further amendments to the notification number F.N. 61-03/20/2010/NCTE(N&S), dated the 23rd",,,,,,,

August, 2010, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part III, Section 4, dated the 25th August, 2010, hereinafter referred to as the said",,,,,,,

notification namely:-,,,,,,,

(1) In the said notification, in para 1 in sub-para (i), in clause (a) after the words and brackets “Graduation and two year Diploma in Elementary",,,,,,,

Education (by whatever name known), the following shall be inserted, namely:-",,,,,,,

OR,,,,,,,

“Graduation with at least 50% marks and Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.)â€​,,,,,,,

(2) In the said notification in para 3, for sub-para(a), the following sub-para shall be substituted namely:-",,,,,,,

“(a) who has acquired the qualification of Bachelor of Education from any NCTE recognised institution shall be considered for appointment as a,,,,,,,

teacher in classes I to V provided the person so appointed as a teacher shall mandatorily undergo a six month Bridge Course in Elementary Education,,,,,,,

recognised by the NCTE, within two years of such appointment as primary teacherâ€​",,,,,,,

13. On 26.09.2018, while dealing with the issue as to the stage at which the weightage is to be given to Shiksha Mitras for their experience in terms of",,,,,,,

the directions of this Court in Anand Kumar Yadav (2018) 13 SCC 560 and 1981 Rules, Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad",,,,,,,

in Kulbhushan Mishra and another vs. State of U.P. and others (Special Appeal No. 812 of 2018 etc.) observed:-,,,,,,,

“…we are of the considered view that weightage was not contemplated to be added to the marks obtained by a person in the Assistant Teacher,,,,,,,

Recruitment Examination.â€​,,,,,,,

14. On 01.12.2018, a G.O. was issued notifying 2nd ATRE (“ATRE-2019â€, for short) for filling up 69,000 vacancies of Assistant Teachers.",,,,,,,

Paragraphs 1, 4.1, 4.2 and 5 of the Annexure to the G.O. were:-",,,,,,,

“In the schools managed by the Basic Education Department the teachers imparting education have major role in the development of girls and boys,,,,,,,

studying in the schools. It has been therefore decided that in order to fill the vacant seats of the teachers in the primary schools a state level Assistant,,,,,,,

Teachers Recruitment Examination will be conducted.,,,,,,,

Only those candidates who are graduate, trained and those who have passed the Teachers Eligibility Test will be eligible to appear in the said",,,,,,,

examination.,,,,,,,

… … …,,,,,,,

4. The minimum qualification, age and residence for the application:-",,,,,,,

(1) In Rule 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service (22nd Amendment) Rules, 2018 the described educational, training passed,",,,,,,,

Government of India or by the State Government the organized Teachers Eligibility Examination (Primary Level) passed candidates will be eligible for,,,,,,,

filing the application in the Assistant Teachers Recruitment Examination, 2019.",,,,,,,

(2) By the National Teachers Education Council, New Delhi the Minimum Qualification with regard to the Class-1 to Class-5 the issued Notification",,,,,,,

dated 23.08.2010, 29.07.2011, 12.11.2014 and 28.11.2014 (has been described in Appendix-2 in preamble 1.2) and on 28.06.2018 fixed eligible",,,,,,,

candidates are entitled to file application in the Assistant Teachers Recruitment Examination, 2019.â€​",,,,,,,

5. The Subject Matter and the Structure of the Recruitment Examination of the Assistant Teachers:-,,,,,,,

Time of the examination 2.30 hours (from 11.00 a.m. to 13.30 p.m.) Total Marks 150,,,,,,,

Type of questions very small optional question, No. of questions 150",,,,,,,

The level of the Subject Matter:-,,,,,,,

(1) Hindi Language, Sanskrit and English, Science, Maths, Environment and Social Studies (upto Class 12 level).",,,,,,,

(2) Teaching Efficiency, Child Psychology, Information Technology, Life Efficiency Management and Attitude â€" (Upto D.L.Ed. syllabus).â€​",,,,,,,

The tabular chart appended thereafter was identical to one in G.O. dated 09.01.2018 for ATRE-2018. The chart dealt with same subjects with,,,,,,,

identical syllabus and marks against each subject.,,,,,,,

15. An advertisement was thereafter issued on 29.12.2018 notifying that ATRE-2019 would be conducted on 06.01.2019.,,,,,,,

16. On 03.01.2019, an order was passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ A No.27461 of 2018 to the following effect:-",,,,,,,

“The grievance raised by means of the present writ petition is that without notifying the minimum qualifying marks the respondents are going to,,,,,,,

conduct written examination of Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examinatin-2019 on 06.01.2019.,,,,,,,

According to the petitioners, earlier when the examinations were conducted, minimum qualifying marks were duly declared by the respondents. In this",,,,,,,

regard the circular issued by the State Government dated 01st December, 2018 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) has been placed before this Court.",,,,,,,

Standing Counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 3. Sri A.K. Yadav has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.2.,,,,,,,

All the respondents are granted three days’ time to seek instruction in the matter.,,,,,,,

Put up this matter as fresh on 08.01.2019.â€​,,,,,,,

17. ATRE-2019 was conducted on 06.01.2019 without there being any specification of minimum qualifying marks.,,,,,,,

18. However, on the next day i.e. on 07.01.2019, following order was passed by the Special Secretary to the State Government:-",,,,,,,

“To,,,,,,,

1. Director,",,,,,,,

State Education Research and Training Council, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.",,,,,,,

2. Secretary, Exam Controller Authority, U.P. Prayagraj.",,,,,,,

Basic Siksha Anubhag â€" 4 Lucknow Date 07 January 2019.,,,,,,,

Subject:- Regarding prescribing the minimum qualifying marks in respect of ‘Assistant Teacher Recruitment Exam 2019’ for Primary Schools,,,,,,,

run by Uttar Pradesh, Basic Siksha Council.",,,,,,,

Sir,",,,,,,,

Refer to the letter no. B.S.C. 16426-27/2018-19 dated 05 January, 2019 of the Secretary, Basic Siksha Council regarding aforesaid subject, whereby it",,,,,,,

has been requested to prescribe the minimum qualifying marks for the ‘Assistant Teacher Recruitment Exam 2019’.,,,,,,,

2. In this regard I have been directed to state that after proper deliberation by the Government, in pursuant to the G.O. No.2056/68-4-2018 dated",,,,,,,

01.12.2018 issued for conducting the ‘Assistant Teacher Recruitment Exam 2019’, for the purpose of result minimum qualifying marks are",,,,,,,

being prescribed. This Minimum Qualifying Marks will be only for ‘Assistant Teacher Recruitment Exam 2019’:-,,,,,,,

(a) For the candidates of General Category, candidates getting 97 marks of the total 150 meaning 65% and more will be considered passed for",,,,,,,

‘Assistant Teacher Recruitment Exam 2019’.,,,,,,,

(b) For the candidates of all other Reserved Categories, candidates getting 90 marks of the total 150 meaning 60 percent and more will be considered",,,,,,,

passed for ‘Assistant Teacher Recruitment Exam 2019’.,,,,,,,

(c) Candidates qualified on the basis of aforesaid ‘a’ and ‘b’ will be eligible to apply against the 69000 vacancies advertised and on,,,,,,,

qualifying merely on the basis of aforesaid minimum marks will not have any claim for recruitment because this exam is only one of the eligible,,,,,,,

standard for recruitment.,,,,,,,

(d) In case of more candidates qualifying than the prescribed number of posts (69000), of the total qualified candidates, eligible candidates will be",,,,,,,

selected on the basis of final merit list against the advertised posts in accordance with Appendix-I of twentieth Amendment of Uttar Pradesh Basic,,,,,,,

Siksha (teachers) Rules, 1981. Remaining candidates will automatically be out from the selection process and they will not have any claim on the basis",,,,,,,

of the ‘Assistant Teacher Recruitment Exam 2019’.,,,,,,,

(e) No communication will be entertained in respect of the Minimum Qualifying Marks.â€​,,,,,,,

19. On or about 16.01.2019, the first petition namely W.P. No.118(SS) of 2019 was filed by some Shiksha Mitras challenging the aforementioned",,,,,,,

Order dated 07.01.2019 and assailing the fixation of minimum qualifying marks. About 99 Writ Petitions in all were filed by Shiksha Mitras questioning,,,,,,,

the Order dated 07.01.2019.,,,,,,,

20. On 24.01.2019, 23rd Amendment to 1981 Rules was published. By this Amendment, the essential qualifications in Rule 8(ii) were substituted as",,,,,,,

under:-,,,,,,,

“(ii)(a) Bachelors degree from a University established by law in India or a degree recognized by the Government equivalent thereto together with,,,,,,,

any other training course recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto together with the training qualification consisting of a Basic,,,,,,,

Teacher’s Certificate (BTC), two year BTC (Urdu) Vishisht BTC. Two year Diploma in Education (Special Education) approved by",,,,,,,

Rehabilitation council of India or four year Degree in Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.), two year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever",,,,,,,

name known) in accordance with the National Council of Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure), Regulations 2002, Graduation with",,,,,,,

at least fifty percent marks and Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.), provided that the person so appointed as a teacher shall mandatorily undergo a six",,,,,,,

month Bridge Course in Elementary Education recognised by the NCTE, within two years of such appointment as primary teacher or any training",,,,,,,

qualifications to be added by National Council of Teacher Education for the recruitment of teachers in primary education.,,,,,,,

and,,,,,,,

teacher eligibility test passed conducted by the Government or by the Government of India.â€​,,,,,,,

Consequently, Graduates having 50 per cent or more marks and holding degree of Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) became eligible for posts of",,,,,,,

Assistant Master and Assistant Mistresses in Junior Basic Schools in the manner laid down in the Amendment. The concerned provisions in 1981,,,,,,,

Rules dealing with eligibility of such candidate were given retrospective effect from 01.01.2018.,,,,,,,

21. On 07.03.2019, 24th Amendment to 1981 Rules was published further amending Rule 8(ii) by adding sub-clause (aa) after sub-clause (a) to the",,,,,,,

following effect:-,,,,,,,

“(aa) Graduation with at least fifty percent marks and Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.), provided that the person so appointed as a teacher shall",,,,,,,

mandatorily undergo a six month Bridge Course in Elementary Education recognised by the NCTE, within two years of such appointment as primary",,,,,,,

teacher or any training qualifications to be added by National Council of Teacher Education for the recruitment of teacher in primary education, and",,,,,,,

teacher eligibility test passed conducted by the Government or by the Government of India.â€​,,,,,,,

This Amendment gave retrospective effect to sub clause (aa) of Rule 8(ii) from 28.06.2018.,,,,,,,

22. A Single Judge of the High Court allowed W.P. No.1188(SS) of 2019 (Mohd. Rizwan and others vs. State of U.P.) and other 98 Writ Petitions by,,,,,,,

common judgement and order dated 29.03.2019. Some of the relevant passages from the judgement are:-,,,,,,,

“1. The order under challenge is Government Order bearing No.46/68-4-2019-2056/2019 dated 7.1.2019 issued by the Special Secretary, Basic",,,,,,,

Education Anubhag-4, Government of U.P., Lucknow fixing the minimum qualifying marks for Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, 2019 as",,,,,,,

65% for general category and 60% for reserved category. Undisputedly, no minimum qualifying marks have been fixed vide Government Order dated",,,,,,,

01.12.2018 and notification/advertisement dated 05.12.2018, pursuant to which, the examination in question has been conducted on 6.1.2019.",,,,,,,

Undisputedly, the exercise for fixing minimum qualifying marks have been started pursuant to the letter bearing no. B.Sh.P.-16426-27/2018-19 dated",,,,,,,

5.1.2019 preferred by the Secretary, Board of Basic Education to the Government making request for fixation of minimum qualifying marks for the",,,,,,,

examination in question, meaning thereby, the State Government must be intending something other way to declare the result of Assistant Teacher",,,,,,,

Examination, 2019.",,,,,,,

… … …,,,,,,,

157. Under the given circumstances it has been noted that the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination may not be treated as shortlisting,,,,,,,

examination by prescribing such a high minimum qualifying marks as the same may affect the rights of the petitioners (Shiksha Mitras) who may likely,,,,,,,

to be deprived from getting weightage of 25 marks which is statutory prescription in the 22nd Amendment. Further, since the Assistant Teacher",,,,,,,

Recruitment Examination is not the minimum qualification prescribed by the Academic authority and the same has been added in the Rules of 1981 by,,,,,,,

way of 20th and 22nd Amendment, therefore, the qualifying marks should be minimum qualifying marks. Further, the said qualifying marks should be",,,,,,,

seen like minimum. Further, the Shiksha Mitras should be subjected for the same treatment as has been given to them in earlier examination of",,,,,,,

Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination-2018 in terms of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in re: Anand Kumar Yadav (supra). Since this,,,,,,,

examination would be the second and last examination for the Shiksha Mitras in terms of the aforesaid judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court,",,,,,,,

therefore, this examination i.e. Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination-2019 should be conducted in a similar manner as the Assistant Teacher",,,,,,,

Recruitment Examination-2018 has been conducted.,,,,,,,

… … …,,,,,,,

159. To be more precise, since to provide weightage to the candidates, who have qualified Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, is a legal",,,,,,,

prescription under Rule 14(3)(a) of the Rules and the same weightage has been provided in the earlier examination to those candidates, who have",,,,,,,

qualified Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination with the minimum 45% and 40% qualifying marks, therefore, enhancing the qualifying marks up",,,,,,,

to 65% and 60%, permitting the candidates, who are having B.Ed. qualification and quality point marks of those candidates may not be determined as",,,,,,,

per Appendix-I is nothing but appears to be an attempt to oust those persons, who are eligible for the weightage.",,,,,,,

… … …,,,,,,,

163. It would be apt to consider here the relevant provision of law, which provides about qualifying marks in Teacher Eligibility Test and qualifying",,,,,,,

marks in Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination. As per Rule 2(t) of the Rules 1981 (as amended by Twenty Second Amendment, 2018),",,,,,,,

qualifying marks in Teacher Eligibility Test will be such as may be prescribed from time to time by the NCTE, whereas as per Rule 2(x), qualifying",,,,,,,

marks of Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination means such minimum marks as may be determined from time to time by the Government.,,,,,,,

Conjoint reading of aforesaid provisions reveals that for Teacher Eligibility Test, qualifying marks shall be prescribed by the NCTE and there is no",,,,,,,

rider as to what qualifying marks should be fixed, therefore, for Teacher Eligibility Test, the qualifying marks is 60% and 55% for both the category",,,,,,,

and there is no quarrel on it.,,,,,,,

164. However, in Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, it has categorically been indicated in Rule 2(x) that the qualifying marks means such",,,,,,,

minimum marks determined by the State Government from time to time. On account of aforesaid prescription, the State Government has firstly",,,,,,,

determined the minimum qualifying marks as 45% and 40% for both the categories and thereafter, for the same selection of Assistant Teacher",,,,,,,

Recruitment Examination, it has been fixed as 33% and 30% as the State Government could have determined any minimum marks from time to time,",,,,,,,

therefore, it is the domain of the State Government to fix the qualifying marks for the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, but such qualifying",,,,,,,

marks should be ‘minimum’ and ‘minimum’ should be seen like ‘minimum’. ‘Minimum’ may not be seen as,,,,,,,

‘maximum’.,,,,,,,

165. Further, since the person, who qualifies the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination with minimum qualifying marks shall not be appointed on",,,,,,,

the post of Assistant Teacher, rather, he/she shall only be eligible to reach in the next stage, thereby he/she shall be awarded weightage and the",,,,,,,

his/her total quality points shall be calculated. On the basis of total quality points, the candidate shall come in the zone of eligible candidate, who shall",,,,,,,

be appointed according to his/her merit. Meaning thereby, qualifying the examination of Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination does not make",,,,,,,

the person eligible to be selected on the post of Assistant Teacher, but it only makes him/her eligible to get weightage, therefore, the submission of",,,,,,,

learned counsel for the State-respondents that so as to short list the eligible candidates, merit of Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination has been",,,,,,,

enhanced up to 65% is misfit argument.,,,,,,,

… ……,,,,,,,

172. Admittedly, the examinees were not aware about the decision of the State Government regarding minimum qualifying marks before the",,,,,,,

examination in question so besides the fact that rules of game may not be fixed after start of the game, one more aspect is relevant here that in view",,,,,,,

of the dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court in re: P.V. Indirsan (2) (supra) and Rahul Dutta (supra) the minimum eligibility marks should be declared,,,,,,,

before the examination and if the marks have not been fixed prior to the examination in question, may not be fixed later on, therefore the impugned",,,,,,,

order dated 07.01.2019 would be said to have been issued in derogation of aforesaid laws of the Hon’ble Apex Court.,,,,,,,

,"Name of

Examination

/Degree",Quality points,,,,,

1.,High School,"Percentage of Marks in the

examination x 10

100",,,,,

2.,Intermediate,"Percentage of Marks in the

examination x 10

100",,,,,

3.,"Graduation

Degree","Percentage of Marks in the

examination x 10

100",,,,,

4.,"Training

Qualificatio ns

of Rule","Percentage of Marks in the

examination x 10

100",,,,,

5.,"Assistant

Teacher

Recruitment

Examination","Percentage of Marks in the

examination x 60

100",,,,,

6.,"Weightage

Teaching

experiences as

shikshamitra or

as teacher

working as

such in junior

basic schools

run by Basic

Shiksha

Parishad","2.5 marks per completed teaching

year, up to maximum 25 marks, which

ever is less",,,,,

Sr.

No.",Civil Appeals arising form,"Petitioners/

Applicants",,,,,

i,SLP (C) No.6841 of 2020,275,,,,,

ii,SLP (C) No.6847 of 2020,4,,,,,

iii,SLP (C) No.7817 of 2020,34,,,,,

iv,SLP(C)No. (D.No.12246) of 2020,27,,,,,

v,SLP(C)No. (D.No.11450) of 2020,795,,,,,

vi,SLP(C)No. (D.No.13259) of 2020,23,,,,,

vii,SLP(C)No. (D.No.12452) of 2020,98,,,,,

viii,SLP(C)No. (D.No.14138) of 2020,174,,,,,

ix,SLP(C)No. (D.No.11452) of 2020,1352,,,,,

x,SLP (C) No.6842 of 2020,11,,,,,

xi,SLP (C) No.6687 of 2020,4,,,,,

xii,SLP(C) No. (D.No.11331) of 2020,5,,,,,

xiii,SLP (C) No.6848 of 2020,6,,,,,

xiv,SLP (C) No.6845 of 2020,24,,,,,

xv,SLP (C) No.6850 of 2020,3,,,,,

xvi,SLP (C) 6851 of 2020,166,,,,,

xvii,SLP(C)No. (D.No.13872) of 2020,246,,,,,

xviii,SLP (C) No.6846 of 2020,By Association,,,,,

xix,SLP(C) No. (D.No.13888) of 2020,80,,,,,

1,Total Registered Candidates,"4,31,466",,,,,

2,Total Appeared Candidates,"4,09,530",,,,,

3,"Total Qualified candidates in

General Category Cut Off 65%","36,614",,,,,

4,"Total Qualified candidates in

Reserved Category Cut Off 60%","1,09,446",,,,,

,Total Qualified (Point 3+4),"1,46,060",,,,,

5,"Total Shiksha Mitra Appeared in

Exam","45,357",,,,,

6,"Shiksha Mitra passed in General

category Cut Off of 65%",1561,,,,,

7,"Shiksha Mitra passed in Reserved

category Cut Off of 60%",6457,,,,,

,"Total Shiksha Mitra Passed

(point 6+7)","8,018",,,,,

,"Information in reference of Cut

Off 45% or 40%",,,,,,

1,"Shiksha Mitra who secured marks

between 45% to 65%

General category Approx","8,858",,,,,

2,"Shiksha Mitra who secured marks

between 40% to 60%

Reserved category Approx","23,771",,,,,

,Total of 1+2,"32,629",,,,,

3,"Candidate Secured marks between

45% to 65% General category

(other than Shiksha Mitra) Approx","65,080",,,,,

Sl.

No.",Particulars,Details,,,,,

1,"Number of Shiksha Mitras

presently working in the State","1,52,330",,,,,

2,"Number of Shiksha Mitras

appeared in ATRE-2019","45,357",,,,,

3,"Number of Shiksha Mitras securing

more than 45% in General

Category",9386,,,,,

4,"Number of Shiksha Mitras securing

40% marks in reserved category","23,243",,,,,

,Total (3) & (4),"32,629",,,,,

5,"Number of Shiksha Mitras securing

65% marks in General Category",1561,,,,,

6,"Number of Shiksha Mitras securing

more than 60% marks in Reserved

category",6457,,,,,

,Total (5) & (6),8018,,,,,

was permitted by interim orders passed by this Court, to fill up the remaining posts of Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic Schools.",,,,,,,

31. The contest in the present case is principally between Shiksha Mitras on one side, who are aggrieved by fixation of minimum qualifying marks at",,,,,,,

65-60% levels and permitting B.Ed. candidates to participate in the selection process; while the opposition is from the State Government and,,,,,,,

B.Ed./BTC candidates who are Non Shiksha Mitras.,,,,,,,

32. The submissions on behalf of Shiksha Mitras were advanced by Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Dr. Rajiv Dhawan,",,,,,,,

Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Mr. V. Shekhar, Mr. S. Guru Krishna Kumar, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Mr. Dinesh Diwedi, Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, Mr. Jayant Bhushan,",,,,,,,

learned Senior Advocates and Mr. Gaurav Agrawal and Ms. Tanya Agarwal, learned Advocates. Their submissions were :-",,,,,,,

a) 1,37,500 Shiksha Mitras who were initially absorbed in regular service and whose absorption was set aside as a result of the orders passed by the",,,,,,,

Full Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and by this Court in Anand Kumar Yadav (2018) 13 SCC 560, constituted a homogeneous",,,,,,,

class.,,,,,,,

b) As against the minimum qualifying percentage which was at the level of 45-40% for ATRE-2018, the fixation of minimum qualifying percentage at",,,,,,,

the level of 65-60% for ATRE-2019 created unnatural and arbitrary distinction between two sets of Shiksha Mitras.,,,,,,,

c) Such fixation at 65-60% was done after the examination and would amount to changing the rules of the game post examination. Reliance was,,,,,,,

placed on the judgments of this Court in K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another (2008) 3 SCC 512 and other cases.,,,,,,,

d) Being in service for last more than 15 years where they were required to obtain essential qualifications and prepare for ATRE-2019 while,,,,,,,

discharging their service obligations, Shiksha Mitras could not be put at the same level as fresh graduates having B.Ed./BTC qualifications.",,,,,,,

e) The fixation of minimum qualifying percentage in ATRE-2019 at 65-60% incorporated an exclusionary element as against Shiksha Mitras who,",,,,,,,

despite being entitled to weightage for their experience as Shiksha Mitras in terms of specific amendment in 1981 Rules, were now being denied said",,,,,,,

benefit.,,,,,,,

f) In terms of 1981 Rules, only 60% of the score obtained in ATRE would be considered along with other parameters in arriving at the quality points.",,,,,,,

However, ATRE-2019 turned into a principal selection criteria.",,,,,,,

g) With 5% reservation for ex-servicemen, seats allocable to them come to 3450 against which about 650-700 candidates applied. At 65-60% cut off",,,,,,,

level, very few of them would stand a chance. Similar would be the situation in respect of other reserved categories such as physically handicapped",,,,,,,

and dependants of freedom fighters. All these categories would have greater chances at 45-40% cut off.,,,,,,,

With regard to the issue of eligibility of B.Ed. candidates, some of the learned counsel submitted:-",,,,,,,

i) In terms of 1981 Rules, as they stood when ATRE-2019 was conducted, the persons holding B.Ed. degree could not be appointed as Assistant",,,,,,,

Teachers but would first be appointed as Trainee Teachers; and they could be considered for the posts of Assistant Teachers only after their,,,,,,,

successful completion of six months’ training as Trainee Teachers.,,,,,,,

ii) As per Rule 14(b), it was upto the Government to consider and decide the number of candidates to be appointed as Trainee Teachers, which",,,,,,,

exercise was never done.,,,,,,,

iii) 23rd, 24th and 25th Amendments to 1981 Rules were effected after ATRE-2019 was held. The retrospective effect granted to these amendments",,,,,,,

was beyond the rule making power of the State Government and thus could not save the obvious illegality.,,,,,,,

33. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General appeared for the State while Mr. H.N. Salve, Mr. R. Venkataramani, Mr. Pallav",,,,,,,

Shishodiya, Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan and Ms. V. Mohana, learned Senior Advocates appeared for B.Ed./BTC candidates. Their submissions were:-",,,,,,,

A) The State was within its rights to fix cut off marks at 65-60% level. As per Rule 2(1)(x) of 1981 Rules, qualifying marks in respect of ATRE",,,,,,,

would be “such minimum marks as may be determined from time to time by the Governmentâ€​.,,,,,,,

B) The order dated 07.01.2019 itself disclosed that the proposal for fixing the cut off was initiated on 05.01.2019 i.e. before ATRE-2019 was held on,,,,,,,

06.01.2019. The proposal stated that approximately 11 lakh candidates had appeared in TET-2018 out of which 3,86,000 were declared successful and",,,,,,,

“there being a possibility of competitionâ€​, it was proposed that the cut off marks be fixed at 5% higher than TET Examinationâ€​.",,,,,,,

C) The reasons for fixing the cut off marks at 65-60% level were:-,,,,,,,

(i) to narrow down the scope of selection because of the increased number of applications; and,,,,,,,

(ii) to achieve improvement in academic performance whereby meritorious candidates with higher marks would alone be permitted to enter the zone,,,,,,,

of consideration.,,,,,,,

(iii) The pattern of ATRE-2019 was completely different. As against short descriptive answers required in ATRE-2018, the emphasis in ATRE-2019",,,,,,,

was on multiple choice-objective questions.,,,,,,,

D) There was no change in the rules of game as the cut off marks were prescribed for the first time by order dated 07.01.2019. Reliance was placed,,,,,,,

on the decision of this Court in Yogesh Yadav vs. Union of India and others (2013) 14 SCC 623 and Jharkhand Public Service Commission vs. Manoj,,,,,,,

Kumar Gupta (2020) 1 SCALE 504.,,,,,,,

E) The ATRE was valid only for recruitment of that particular year and the candidates had to abide by the conditions of recruitment pertaining to the,,,,,,,

concerned ATRE examination. Shiksha Mitras who participated in ATRE-2018 and in ATRE-2019 did not form a homogeneous class.,,,,,,,

F) Since 60% marks from ATRE would be taken into account while preparing quality points, there was no occasion for any candidate not doing his",,,,,,,

best at ATRE-2019. Thus, non-disclosure of cut off marks in the advertisement/Guidelines was inconsequential.",,,,,,,

G) The eligibility and entitlement of B.Ed. candidates to take part in ATRE-2019 was never in challenge before the Single Judge.,,,,,,,

S.

No.",Parameter,ATRE 2018,ATRE 2019,,,,

1,"Total Number of

Vacancies",68500,69000,,,,

2,"Total Number of

Candidates who

appeared","1,07,000","4,09,530",,,,

3,Qualifying Marks,40-45%,60-65%,,,,

4,"Total Number of

qualified candidates","41,556

(38.83%)","1,46,078

(37.62%)",,,,

5,"Total number of

Shiksha Mitras that

participated","34,311","45,357",,,,

6,"Total Number of

Shiksha Mitras that

qualified","8588

(25.02%)","8,018

(17.67%)",,,,

7,"Total number of

Shiksha Mitras that

secured between 40-

45% and 60-

65% marks in ATRE

2019",N/A,"32,629",,,,

,"Matric

(10% of

%)","10+2

(10%

of %)","Grad

(10%

of %)","BTC/

B.Ed.

(10%

of %)","Weightage

2.5/annum","ATRE-

19 (60%

of %)","Total

marks

S.M with

35% in

academics",3.5,3.5,3.5,5,25,"27

(45%)",67.5

Other with

67% in

academics",6.7,6.7,6.7,6.7,0,"40.2

(67%)",67

(n) perform such other functions as may be entrusted to it by the Central Government.â€​,,,,,,,

38.1 The NCTE Act, as originally enacted, was primarily concerned with regulating standards in “teacher education systemâ€. The provisions of",,,,,,,

the NCTE Act came up for consideration in State of Maharashtra vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and others (2006) 9 SCC,,,,,,,

1. This Court held:-,,,,,,,

“62. From the above decisions, in our judgment, the law appears to be very well settled. So far as coordination and determination of standards in",,,,,,,

institutions for higher education or research, scientific and technical institutions are concerned, the subject is exclusively covered by Entry 66 of List I",,,,,,,

of Schedule VII to the Constitution and the State has no power to encroach upon the legislative power of Parliament. It is only when the subject is,,,,,,,

covered by Entry 25 of List III of Schedule VII to the Constitution that there is a concurrent power of Parliament as well as the State Legislatures,,,,,,,

and appropriate Act can be made by the State Legislature subject to limitations and restrictions under the Constitution.,,,,,,,

63. In the instant case, admittedly, Parliament has enacted the 1993 Act, which is in force. The preamble of the Act provides for establishment of",,,,,,,

National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) with a view to achieving planned and coordinated development of the teacher-education system,,,,,,,

throughout the country, the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher-education system and for matters connected",,,,,,,

therewith. With a view to achieving that object, the National Council for Teacher Education has been established at four places by the Central",,,,,,,

Government. It is thus clear that the field is fully and completely occupied by an Act of Parliament and covered by Entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII.,,,,,,,

It is, therefore, not open to the State Legislature to encroach upon the said field. Parliament alone could have exercised the power by making",,,,,,,

appropriate law. In the circumstances, it is not open to the State Government to refuse permission relying on a State Act or on “policy",,,,,,,

considerationâ€​.,,,,,,,

38.2 In Basic Education Board, U.P. vs. Upendra Rai and others (2008) 3 SCC 432, the issue was whether the provisions of the NCTE Act related to",,,,,,,

the ordinary educational institutions and whether they would override the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act and Rules made thereunder. This,,,,,,,

Court held:-,,,,,,,

“22. It may be mentioned that the word “institution†is defined in Section 2(e) of the NCTE Act to mean an institution which offers courses or,,,,,,,

training in teachers’ education. Thus, the NCTE Act does not deal with the ordinary educational institutions like primary schools, high schools,",,,,,,,

intermediate college or university. The word “institution†as defined in Section 2(2) [sic 2(e)] only means teachers’ training institutes and not,,,,,,,

the ordinary educational institutions. Hence, it is only the teachers’ training institutions which have to seek grant of recognition or continuation of",,,,,,,

recognition from the Regional Committee. The ordinary educational institutions do not have to seek any such recognition or continuation under the,,,,,,,

NCTE Act. In fact, the NCTE Act does not relate to the ordinary educational institutions at all. We, therefore, fail to understand how it can be said",,,,,,,

that the NCTE Act overrides the U.P. Basic Education Act and the Rules made thereunder. In fact, the two Acts operate in altogether two different",,,,,,,

fields. The NCTE Act deals with the teachers’ training institutions while the U.P. Basic Education Act deals with the ordinary primary schools in,,,,,,,

U.P. and not any teachers’ training institute. The argument of learned counsel for the respondent is thus wholly misconceived.â€​,,,,,,,

38.3 The NCTE Act was thereafter amended in 2011 by Act 18 of 2011 and after such amendment the long title to the Act now reads ‘an Act to,,,,,,,

provide for the establishment of a National Council for Teacher Education with a view to achieving planned and co-ordinated development of the,,,,,,,

teacher education system throughout the country, the regulation and National Council for Teachers Education (Amendment) Act (18 of 2011) proper",,,,,,,

maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system including qualifications of school teachers and for matter connected,,,,,,,

therewith’.,,,,,,,

By the same amendment Section 12A was inserted in the NCTE Act, the relevant part of said Section being:-",,,,,,,

“12A. Power of Council to determine minimum standards of education of school teachers.- For the purpose of maintaining standards of education,,,,,,,

in schools, the Council may, by regulations, determine the qualifications of persons for being recruited as teachers in any pre-primary, primary, upper",,,,,,,

primary, secondary, senior secondary or intermediate school or college, by whatever name called, established, run aided or recognised by the Central",,,,,,,

Government or a State Government or a local or other authority:,,,,,,,

… … …â€​,,,,,,,

Section 32 of the NCTE Act empowers the NCTE to make regulations by issuing notification in the official gazette generally to carry out the,,,,,,,

provisions of the NCTE Act which regulations may now provide for ‘the qualifications of teachers under 12A [Section 32(2)(dd) of the NCTE,,,,,,,

Act].,,,,,,,

38.4 It is thus clear that for maintaining standards of education in schools, the NCTE is now specifically empowered to determine the qualifications of",,,,,,,

persons for being recruited as teachers in schools or colleges. In addition to regulating standards in “teacher education systemâ€, the NCTE Act",,,,,,,

now deals with regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in respect of qualifications of persons to be recruited as teachers.,,,,,,,

39. Having noted the aforestated change in the scope and ambit of the NCTE Act, another development must also be noticed. The Right of Children",,,,,,,

to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (‘the RTE Act’, for short) was enacted by the Parliament, inter alia, to provide to the children in",,,,,,,

the age group of six to fourteen years “full time elementary education of satisfactory and equitable quality in a formal school which satisfies certain,,,,,,,

essential norms and standardsâ€​. Section 23 of the RTE Act deals with qualifications for appointment of teachers and states:-,,,,,,,

“23. Qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers.-,,,,,,,

(1) Any person possessing such minimum qualifications, as laid down by an academic authority, authorised by the Central Government, by notification,",,,,,,,

shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher.,,,,,,,

(2) ……,,,,,,,

(3) ……â€​,,,,,,,

40. By Notification dated 31.03.2010, the Central Government, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 23 of the RTE Act authorized the",,,,,,,

NCTE as an “Academic Authorityâ€​ to lay down the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher.,,,,,,,

The Notification dated 28.06.2018 issued by the NCTE was in exercise of power so conferred upon it by virtue of the Notification dated 31.03.2010.,,,,,,,

In terms of the Notification dated 28.06.2018, the qualification of ‘Bachelor of Education’ from any NCTE recognised institution shall now be a",,,,,,,

valid qualification for appointment as a teacher in classes I to V provided the person so appointed as a teacher mandatorily undergoes six months’,,,,,,,

Bridge Course in elementary education within two years of such appointment.,,,,,,,

41. Going by the Parliamentary intent in empowering NCTE under the provisions of the NCTE Act and specific authorization in favour of NCTE,,,,,,,

under said Notification dated 31.03.2010, the authority of NCTE is beyond any doubt. Though there is no specific regulation as contemplated under",,,,,,,

Section 32 read with Sections 12 and 12A of the NCTE Act, for the present purposes by virtue of the specific authorization under the Notification",,,,,,,

dated 31.03.2010, NCTE was entitled to lay down that those holding the qualification of ‘Bachelor of Education’ as detailed in said Notification",,,,,,,

are entitled to be appointed as teachers for classes I to V. Such prescription on part of the NCTE would be binding. It is for this reason that G.O.,,,,,,,

dated 01.12.2018 notifying ATRE-2019 clearly stated that the candidates possessing minimum qualifications specified in Notifications issued by the,,,,,,,

NCTE including one dated 28.06.2018 were entitled to participate in ATRE-2019.,,,,,,,

42. The eligibility and entitlement of B.Ed. candidates in law, thus being beyond any doubt, the next question to be considered is whether without",,,,,,,

making appropriate consequential amendments to 1981 Rules before ATRE-2019 was held, the candidates possessing B.Ed. qualification could be",,,,,,,

allowed to take part in ATRE-2019. Reliance was placed on the following observations from the decisions of this Court.,,,,,,,

i) P. Mahendran and others etc. v. State of Karnataka and others (1990) 1 SCC 411,,,,,,,

“4. … …In the absence of any express provision contained in the amending Rules it must be held to be prospective in nature. The Rules which,,,,,,,

are prospective in nature cannot take away or impair the right of candidates holding Diploma in Mechanical Engineering as on the date of making,,,,,,,

appointment as well as on the date of scrutiny by the Commission they were qualified for selection and appointment. … …â€​,,,,,,,

ii) Madan Mohan Sharma and another v. State of Rajasthan and others (2008) 3 SCC 724,,,,,,,

“…Once the advertisement had been issued on the basis of the circular obtaining at that particular time, the effect would be that the selection",,,,,,,

process should continue on the basis of the criteria which were laid down and it cannot be on the basis of the criteria which has been made,,,,,,,

subsequentlyâ€​,,,,,,,

43. The Notification dated 28.06.2018 being binding on the State Government, the statutory regime put in place by the State has to be read in",,,,,,,

conformity with said Notification. The eligibility or entitlement being already conferred by Notification dated 28.06.2018, the amendments to 1981",,,,,,,

Rules were effected only to make the statutory regime consistent with the directives issued by the NCTE. The right or eligibility was not conferred by,,,,,,,

amendments effected to 1981 Rules for the first time and therefore the element of retrospectivity present in the concerned amendments has to be,,,,,,,

read in that perspective. The intent behind those amendments was not to create a right for the first time with retrospective effect but was only to,,,,,,,

effectuate the statutory regime in tune or accord with NCTE directives. Theoretically, even if such statutory regime was not made so consistent, the",,,,,,,

concerned candidates holding B.Ed. degrees could still be eligible and could not have been denied candidature for ATRE-2019.,,,,,,,

44. Pertinently, the performance in ATRE is one of the indicia that goes into making of quality points which in turn have to be considered at the stage",,,,,,,

of preparation of merit list for selection. By the time the actual process of selection was undertaken, the statutory regime in the form of 1981 Rules",,,,,,,

was perfectly consistent and in order.,,,,,,,

The decisions relied upon and quoted above therefore have no application to the instant case.,,,,,,,

45. The decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava and another etc. vs. State of M.P. and others etc (1999) 7 SCC 120.,,,,,,,

was also relied upon to submit that since the requirements in 1981 Rules (as they stood before 23rd Amendment) in so far as entitlement of B.Ed.,,,,,,,

candidates was concerned, were in addition to the conditions emanating from the Notification dated 28.06.2018, it must be independently satisfied and",,,,,,,

as such there could be no retrospective amendment to 1981 Rules. In said decision, it was held by this Court.",,,,,,,

“39. ... In every case the minimum standards as laid down by the Central statute or under it, have to be complied with by the State while making",,,,,,,

admissions. It may, in addition, lay down other additional norms for admission or regulate admissions in the exercise of its powers under Entry 25 List",,,,,,,

III in a manner not inconsistent with or in a manner which does not dilute the criteria so laid down.â€​,,,,,,,

As held by this Court, an additional norm laid down by the State would certainly be applicable and enforceable. But once, the NCTE laid down that",,,,,,,

candidates holding B.Ed. degrees would be entitled to be appointed as teachers for classes I to V, provided they undergo a six months’ Bridge",,,,,,,

Course, the stipulation in 1981 Rules (before 23rd Amendment) that they must first be appointed as trainee teachers must give way to that under the",,,,,,,

Notification dated 28.06.2018. Said stipulation in 1981 Rules cannot be considered as an additional norm. It ran completely counter to that under the,,,,,,,

Notification dated 28.06.2018 which is why the Amendment in that behalf was given retrospective effect to bring in consistency.,,,,,,,

46. In the circumstances, we approve the conclusions drawn by the High Court with regard to this issue and hold that the B.Ed. candidates were",,,,,,,

rightly allowed to participate in the instant selection process.,,,,,,,

47. We now deal with the questions concerning fixation of 65-60% as minimum qualifying marks for ATRE 2019.,,,,,,,

The first question deals with the submission that such fixation was arbitrary and irrational and can be considered under following sub-heads:-,,,,,,,

(a) Whether there could be different parameters regarding minimum qualifying marks in ATRE-2019 as against those in ATRE-2018.,,,,,,,

(b) Whether Shiksha Mitras who appeared in ATRE-2018 and ATRE-2019 constituted one single homogenous class.,,,,,,,

(c) Should there not be a different yardstick for Shiksha Mitras, who had been rendering service as teachers, as against what could be applied for",,,,,,,

fresh graduates.,,,,,,,

(d) Should not “minimum qualifying marksâ€​ appear to be minimum? Was not the cut off at 65-60% per se arbitrary;,,,,,,,

(e) Could ATRE-2019 be converted into an exclusionary test and thereby deny to the Shiksha Mitras the benefit of weightage for experience.,,,,,,,

The second question concerns about the correctness of the exercise of power in such fixation after ATRE-2019 was held.,,,,,,,

48. For selection of 68,500 posts, 1,07,000 candidates had participated in ATRE-2018; and with qualifying marks at 45-40%, 41,556 candidates had",,,,,,,

qualified. The percentage of qualifying candidates was thus 38.83%. On the other hand, 4,09,530 candidates participated in the present selection",,,,,,,

process for 69,000 posts and with 65-60% cut off marks, 1,46,078 candidates had qualified. The percentage of qualifying candidates this time was",,,,,,,

37.62%, which was almost equal to that in ATRE-2018. However, the number of qualified candidates in ATRE-2018 was less than the number of",,,,,,,

vacancies; while even with the cut off at 65-60% the number of qualified candidates in the present selection was far in excess of the number of posts.,,,,,,,

These figures give indications about the nature and the difficulty level of the examinations and show that even with cut off at 65-60%, the percentage",,,,,,,

of qualifying candidates was almost the same.,,,,,,,

49. It is true that the total number of posts of Assistant Teachers sought to be filled up by ATRE-2018 and 2019 was 1,37,500, the exact number of",,,,,,,

Shiksha Mitras whose absorption as Assistant Teachers was set aside; and that Shiksha Mitras were granted certain benefits in terms of the,,,,,,,

directions issued by this Court in Anand Kumar Yadav (2018) 13 SCC 560. One of the submissions was that all Shiksha Mitras who were granted,,,,,,,

such benefit constituted a homogenous class and as such there could not be any inter se distinction between Shiksha Mitras who appeared in ATRE-,,,,,,,

2018 on one hand and those who appeared in ATRE-2019 on the other. It was also contended that the syllabus for both the examinations with,,,,,,,

allocation of marks for different subjects being identical, any distinction between two sets of Shiksha Mitras and subjecting those who appeared at",,,,,,,

ATRE-2019 to considerably high cut off would be arbitrary and illogical.,,,,,,,

50. It needs to be stated here that though the syllabus and subject wise allocation of marks were identical, the nature of ATRE-2019 was entirely",,,,,,,

different. The questions in ATRE-2018 were descriptive in nature and the duration of examination was three hours. However, those in ATRE 2019",,,,,,,

were multiple choice â€" objective questions and the duration of examination was also different. Rather than writing descriptive answers to questions,,,,,,,

which was the modality in ATRE-2018, multiple choices were given and the correct answer was to be tick marked in ATRE 2019. Naturally, the",,,,,,,

nature and the difficulty level of both the examinations were different. Sub question,,,,,,,

(a) must therefore be answered in the affirmative and it must be accepted that there could be different parameters regarding minimum qualifying,,,,,,,

marks for ATRE-2019.,,,,,,,

51. All the candidates including Shiksha Mitras who appeared in ATRE 2018 formed one class while those who appeared in ATRE 2019 formed,,,,,,,

another class. There cannot be inter se connection or homogeneity between candidates appearing in one examination or selection with those appearing,,,,,,,

in another examination or selection. The candidates would undoubtedly compete with each other in the same examination on a para meter which,,,,,,,

applies to all of them equally. But to say that Shiksha Mitras who appeared in ATRE-2019 must be allowed equality with candidates of ATRE-2018,",,,,,,,

who were part of a different selection process would be incorrect and illogical. The basic norms of ATRE-2019 must be tested on their own and,,,,,,,

cannot depend upon para meters or norms on the basis of which ATRE-2018 was held. Otherwise the integrity of the examination process will get,,,,,,,

defeated and nullified.,,,,,,,

Shiksha Mitras were given chances in two successive selections and some of the Shiksha Mitras who had failed in ATRE-2018 appeared in ATRE-,,,,,,,

2019 in exercise of such chance. Those who could not clear ATRE-2018 with 45-40% cut off cannot now be heard to say that the same cut off ought,,,,,,,

to be maintained when the nature of examination and the difficulty level had completely changed.,,,,,,,

We, therefore, reject the submission that Shiksha Mitras who appeared in ATRE-2018 and ATRE-2019 formed a homogenous class and answer sub",,,,,,,

question (b) accordingly. The candidates who appeared in ATRE-2018 between themselves formed one class while those who appeared in ATRE-,,,,,,,

2019 formed another class. The merit of one class had to be tested on the basis of the examination which the candidates forming that class had,,,,,,,

undergone and no para meters or norms of the earlier examination could be imported or implanted in the latter examination.,,,,,,,

52. Relying on the decision of this Court in State of M.P. and others vs. Gopal D. Tirthani and others (2003) 7 SCC 83, it was submitted that Shiksha",,,,,,,

Mitras who had been discharging their services as teachers could not be put at the same level with fresh graduates having B.Ed./BTC qualifications.,,,,,,,

In that case, this Court was called upon to consider setting apart of certain seats by the State Government for in service candidates in Post Graduate",,,,,,,

courses. It was observed by this Court: -,,,,,,,

“21. … There is nothing wrong in the State Government setting apart a definite percentage of educational seats at postgraduation level consisting,,,,,,,

of degree and diploma courses exclusively for the in-service candidates. To the extent of the seats so set apart, there is a separate and exclusive",,,,,,,

source of entry or channel for admission. It is not reservation. In-service candidates, and the candidates not in the service of the State Government,",,,,,,,

are two classes based on an intelligible differentia. There is a laudable purpose sought to be achieved. In-service candidates, on attaining higher",,,,,,,

academic achievements, would be available to be posted in rural areas by the State Government. It is not that an in-service candidate would leave the",,,,,,,

service merely on account of having secured a postgraduate degree or diploma though secured by virtue of being in the service of the State,,,,,,,

Government. If there is any misapprehension, the same is allayed by the State Government obtaining a bond from such candidates as a condition",,,,,,,

precedent to their taking admission that after completing PG degree/diploma course they would serve the State Government for another five years.,,,,,,,

Additionally, a bank guarantee of rupees three lakhs is required to be submitted along with the bond. There is, thus, clearly a perceptible reasonable",,,,,,,

nexus between the classification and the object sought to be achieved.â€​,,,,,,,

This Court was considering validity of certain percentage of seats earmarked for in-service candidates and it found the classification to be correct,",,,,,,,

having nexus with the object of ensuing availability of competent professionals in the rural parts of the State. On the other hand, the object of giving",,,,,,,

opportunities to Shiksha Mitras was to ensure that they were given fair chance to compete with others so that the best of the lot would be available to,,,,,,,

take care of primary education in the State. In our view, the submission does not deserve acceptance. Sub question (c) is answered accordingly.",,,,,,,

53. It was further submitted that the fixation of cut off at 65-60% was at a considerably high level and ceased to be “minimum qualifying marksâ€,,,,,,,

as contemplated by the relevant provisions of 1989 Rules. This submission found favour with the Single Judge of the High Court who observed that,,,,,,,

the minimum qualifying marks must appear to be minimum.,,,,,,,

The minimum marks required to pass the TET examination are at a level of 60% for open category. Those who desired to be teachers had already,,,,,,,

gone through a process rigorous enough to test their ability with minimum passing percentage at 60%%. Moreover, 60% of the marks scored by a",,,,,,,

candidate in ATRE-2019 would go to determine the quality points allocable to a candidate. Leaving aside the weightage allowable for Shiksha Mitras,",,,,,,,

the overall academic performance of a candidate thus constituted about 40% of quality points whereas a large chunk thereof depended upon the,,,,,,,

performance in ATRE-2019. In terms of 1981 Rules, a candidate would be required to “pass†ATRE and thus ATRE was not only an",,,,,,,

examination that had to be cleared to get into the zone of consideration but 60% of marks scored in that examination would be used for the purposes,,,,,,,

of preparation of merit list. From the perspective of selection, ATRE deserved adequate importance and emphasis. The reason was obvious that all",,,,,,,

the candidates would be tested on a parameter or a norm which would be equal and identical to all the competing claimants. The fixation at 65-60%,,,,,,,

level was to garner the best available talent. Even with this qualifying norm, the percentage of qualified candidates in ATRE-2019 was 37.62% which",,,,,,,

was quite close to 38.83% in ATRE-2018 and the number of qualified candidates was far in excess of the vacancies required to be filled up. Thus, cut",,,,,,,

off at 65-60% level in the present case, by itself cannot be termed as incorrect or illegal exercise of power. Sub question (d) is answered accordingly.",,,,,,,

54. It was then submitted that going by the provisions of 1981 Rules, the performance in ATRE was supposed to be only one of the indicia. However,",,,,,,,

by fixing the cut off at 65-60% level, instead of subserving the requirement of furnishing one of the indicia, ATRE-2019 became an exclusionary test.",,,,,,,

It was submitted that the performance in ATRE overshadowed every other parameter and in the process the benefit of weightage that every Shiksha,,,,,,,

Mitra was entitled to, stood denied to him.",,,,,,,

55. Though as a result of the 22nd Amendment, passing of ATRE ceased to be part of Rule 8, the requirement was specifically retained in Rule 14 of",,,,,,,

1981 Rules. Further, 60% of the marks scored by a candidate in ATRE, in terms of Appendix I read with Rule 14(2) would go in determining quality",,,,,,,

points to prepare the merit list. The major portion of quality points being directly relatable to the performance in ATRE, mere fixation at 65-60% level",,,,,,,

which applied to all the candidates across the board cannot be said to be exclusionary. ATRE featured as the common platform on the basis of which,,,,,,,

individual merit of various candidates could be tested, which is why a major portion of allocable quality points was assigned to the performance in",,,,,,,

ATRE. In the circumstances, the performance in ATRE-2019 was given adequate and due weightage by fixation of cut off at 65-60% level.",,,,,,,

56. The submission that as a result of such fixation large number of Shiksha Mitras were denied advantage of weightage as determined under the,,,,,,,

provisions of 1981 Rules, also does not deserve acceptance. In Kulbhushan Mishra and another vs. State of U.P. and others, the Division Bench of",,,,,,,

the High Court had concluded that weightage allocable to the experience of Shiksha Mitras was not contemplated to be added to the marks obtained,,,,,,,

by a person in the ATRE. All the Shiksha Mitras were thus aware that they had to qualify in the ATRE and they would be entitled to weightage for,,,,,,,

their experience only thereafter. More than 8000 Shiksha Mitras did qualify in ATRE-2019, which number must have included those who had earlier",,,,,,,

failed to make it in ATRE-2018. Those Shiksha Mitras who were meritorious and took the examination with seriousness that it deserved, certainly",,,,,,,

succeeded in securing marks more than the cut off of 65-60%. The directions issued by this Court in Anand Kumar Yadav (2018) 13 SCC 560 were,,,,,,,

to ensure that regardless of any other considerations, Shiksha Mitras would have opportunity to match their skills against other candidates. Viewed",,,,,,,

thus, the fixation of cut off at 65-60% which was intended to select the best of the candidates cannot be termed as exclusionary nor was it intended to",,,,,,,

deprive the Shiksha Mitras of the advantage of weightage for experience. Sub question (e) must therefore be answered against Shiksha Mitras.,,,,,,,

57. While answering the first question, we therefore conclude that the fixation of cut off at 65-60% in ATRE-2019 was perfectly valid and justified.",,,,,,,

Considering the large number of candidates who appeared at ATRE-2019 as well as the nature and difficulty level of the examination, the cut off was",,,,,,,

designed to draw the best available talent. The endeavour on part of the State in attempting to secure the best of the teachers was therefore fully,,,,,,,

justified. It needs no emphasis that the right to education guaranteed in terms of Article 21A of the Constitution would envisage quality education being,,,,,,,

imparted to the children which in turn, would signify that the teachers must be meritorious and the best of the lot. Any process which applied equally to",,,,,,,

all the candidates and was designed to garner the best talent, cannot be called arbitrary or irrational.",,,,,,,

58. With regard to the second question, it is clear from the record that the cut off at 65-60% for ATRE-2019 was declared a day after the",,,,,,,

examination was held. As is reflected from the Order dated 07.01.2019, the process was initiated on 05.01.2019 but the actual declaration was on",,,,,,,

07.01.2019. The correctness of such exercise was called in question by Shiksha Mitras and certain decisions of this Court were relied upon. The basic,,,,,,,

submissions were that the candidates ought to have been made aware of the cut off well in advance and the fixation of cut off after the examination,,,,,,,

was over, would be incorrect and invalid.",,,,,,,

We may now consider some of the decisions relied upon by either side.,,,,,,,

A] In State of Haryana vs. Subash Chander Marwaha and others (1974) 3 SCC 220, a bench of two judges of this Court considered the question",,,,,,,

whether the action of the State in appointing first seven persons from the list of qualified candidates leaving out other qualified candidates when there,,,,,,,

were enough vacancies, was correct. It was observed:-",,,,,,,

“10. One fails to see how the existence of vacancies give a legal right to a candidate to be selected for appointment. The examination is for the,,,,,,,

purpose of showing that a particular candidate is eligible for consideration. The selection for appointment comes later. It is open then to the,,,,,,,

Government to decide how many appointments shall be made. The mere fact that a candidate’s name appears in the list will not entitle him to a,,,,,,,

mandamus that he be appointed. Indeed, if the State Government while making the selection for appointment had departed from the ranking given in",,,,,,,

the list, there would have been a legitimate grievance on the ground that the State Government had departed from the rules in this respect. The true",,,,,,,

effect of Rule 10 in Part C is that if and when the State Government propose to make appointments of Subordinate Judges the State Government (i),,,,,,,

shall not make such appointments by travelling outside the list, and (ii) shall make the selection for appointments strictly in the order the candidates",,,,,,,

have been placed in the list published in the Government Gazette. In the present case neither of these two requirements is infringed by the,,,,,,,

Government. They have appointed the first seven persons in the list as Subordinate Judges. Apart from these constraints on the power to make the,,,,,,,

appointments, Rule 10 does not impose any other constraint. There is no constraint that the Government shall make an appointment of a Subordinate",,,,,,,

Judge either because there are vacancies or because a list of candidates has been prepared and is in existence.â€​,,,,,,,

B] In State of U.P. etc. v. Rafiquddin and others etc. 1987 (Supp) SCC 401, the distinction between a normal test and a competitive examination in",,,,,,,

the light of the submission that the minimum marks were fixed without notice to the candidates, was brought out by this Court as under:-",,,,,,,

“12. The Division Bench of the High Court observed that the Commission had no authority to fix any minimum marks for the viva voce test and,,,,,,,

even if it had such a power it could not prescribe the minimum marks without giving notice to the candidates. The Bench further observed that if the,,,,,,,

Commission had given notice to the candidates before the steps for holding the competitive examination were taken the candidates may or may not,,,,,,,

have appeared at the examination. In our opinion the High Court committed a serious error in applying the principles of natural justice to a competitive,,,,,,,

examination. There is a basic difference between an examination held by a college or university or examining body to award degree to candidates,,,,,,,

appearing at the examination and a competitive examination. The examining body or the authority prescribes minimum pass marks. If a person obtains,,,,,,,

the minimum marks as prescribed by the authority he is declared successful and placed in the respective grade according to the number of marks,,,,,,,

obtained by him. In such a case it would be obligatory on the examining authority to prescribe marks for passing the examination as well as for,,,,,,,

securing different grades well in advance. A competitive examination on the other hand is of different character. The purpose and object of the,,,,,,,

competitive examination is to select most suitable candidates for appointment to public services. A person may obtain sufficiently high marks and yet,,,,,,,

he may not be selected on account of the limited number of posts and availability of persons of higher quality. Having regard to the nature and,,,,,,,

characteristics of a competitive examination it is not possible nor necessary to give notice to the candidates about the minimum marks which the,,,,,,,

Commission may determine for purposes of eliminating the unsuitable candidates. The rule of natural justice does not apply to a competitive,,,,,,,

examination.â€​,,,,,,,

 (Emphasis supplied),,,,,,,

C] The procedure for selection of ten posts of District and Sessions Judges (Grade-II) by direct recruitment was in issue in K. Manjusree (2008) 3,,,,,,,

SCC 512. According to the resolution dated 30.11.2004, the method of selection comprised of a written examination for 75 marks and oral examination",,,,,,,

for 25 marks. There would be minimum percentage of marks required for passing the written examination and the successful candidates would be,,,,,,,

called for interview; and the merit would be determined, according to the aggregate of marks in written and oral examinations. There was thus no",,,,,,,

requirement of any minimum qualifying marks in the oral interview. However, after the entire process was over, the Sub-Committee introduced a cut",,,,,,,

off percentage for oral examination, as a result of which, certain candidates stood disqualified. While dealing with the challenge by four such",,,,,,,

candidates, a bench of three judges of this Court observed:",,,,,,,

“27. But what could not have been done was the second change, by introduction of the criterion of minimum marks for the interview. The minimum",,,,,,,

marks for interview had never been adopted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court earlier for selection of District & Sessions Judges, (Grade II). In",,,,,,,

regard to the present selection, the Administrative Committee merely adopted the previous procedure in vogue. The previous procedure as stated",,,,,,,

above was to apply minimum marks only for written examination and not for the oral examination. We have referred to the proper interpretation of the,,,,,,,

earlier Resolutions dated 24-7-2001 and 21-2-2002 and held that what was adopted on 30-11-2004 was only minimum marks for written examination,,,,,,,

and not for the interviews. Therefore, introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview, after the entire selection process (consisting of",,,,,,,

written examination and interview) was completed, would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played which is clearly",,,,,,,

impermissible. We are fortified in this view by several decisions of this Court. It is sufficient to refer to three of them â€" P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v.,,,,,,,

Union of India (1984) 2 SCC 141, Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India (1985) 3 SCC 721 and Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa (1987) 4",,,,,,,

SCC 646.â€​,,,,,,,

(Emphasis supplied),,,,,,,

After considering the earlier decisions in P.K. Ramachandra Iyer and others v. Union of India and others (1984) 2 SCC 141, Umesh Chandra Shukla",,,,,,,

v. Union of India and others (1985) 3 SCC 721, Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa (1987) 4 SCC 646 and Maharashtra State Road Transport",,,,,,,

Corporation and others v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve and others (2001) 10 SCC 51, this Court observed:",,,,,,,

“33. The Resolution dated 30-11-2004 merely adopted the procedure prescribed earlier. The previous procedure was not to have any minimum,,,,,,,

marks for interview. Therefore, extending the minimum marks prescribed for written examination, to interviews, in the selection process is",,,,,,,

impermissible. We may clarify that prescription of minimum marks for any interview is not illegal. We have no doubt that the authority making rules,,,,,,,

regulating the selection, can prescribe by rules, the minimum marks both for written examination and interviews, or prescribe minimum marks for",,,,,,,

written examination but not for interview, or may not prescribe any minimum marks for either written examination or interview. Where the rules do",,,,,,,

not prescribe any procedure, the Selection Committee may also prescribe the minimum marks, as stated above. But if the Selection Committee wants",,,,,,,

to prescribe minimum marks for interview, it should do so before the commencement of selection process. If the Selection Committee prescribed",,,,,,,

minimum marks only for the written examination, before the commencement of selection process, it cannot either during the selection process or after",,,,,,,

the selection process, add an additional requirement that the candidates should also secure minimum marks in the interview. What we have found to",,,,,,,

be illegal, is changing the criteria after completion of the selection process, when the entire selection proceeded on the basis that there will be no",,,,,,,

minimum marks for the interview.,,,,,,,

36. The Full Court however, introduced a new requirement as to minimum marks in the interview by an interpretative process which is not warranted",,,,,,,

and which is at variance with the interpretation adopted while implementing the current selection process and the earlier selections. As the Full Court,,,,,,,

approved the Resolution dated 30-11-2004 of the Administrative Committee and also decided to retain the entire process of selection consisting of,,,,,,,

written examination and interviews it could not have introduced a new requirement of minimum marks in interviews, which had the effect of",,,,,,,

eliminating candidates, who would otherwise be eligible and suitable for selection. Therefore, we hold that the action of the Full Court in revising the",,,,,,,

merit list by adopting a minimum percentage of marks for interviews was impermissible.â€​,,,,,,,

This Court, thus, allowed the challenge and directed the High Court to prepare a fresh merit list in regard to 83 candidates who had qualified in the",,,,,,,

written examination with reference to their marks in written test and interview without applying any minimum marks for interviews.,,,,,,,

D] Relying on the decision in K. Manjusree (2008) 3 SCC 512, a bench of two judges of this Court in Hemani Malhotra etc. vs. High Court of Delhi",,,,,,,

(2008) 7 SCC 11, concluded:-",,,,,,,

“15. There is no manner of doubt that the authority making rules regulating the selection can prescribe by rules the minimum marks both for written,,,,,,,

examination and viva voce, but if minimum marks are not prescribed for viva voce before the commencement of selection process, the authority",,,,,,,

concerned, cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process add an additional requirement/qualification that the candidate",,,,,,,

should also secure minimum marks in the interview. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that prescription of minimum marks by the respondent at",,,,,,,

viva voce test was illegal.â€​,,,,,,,

(Emphasis supplied),,,,,,,

E] In Tej Prakash Pathak and others Vs. Rajasthan High Court and others (2013) 4 SCC 540, a bench of three judges was called upon to consider a",,,,,,,

situation identical to that considered in State of Haryana vs. Subash Chander Marwaha and Others (1974) 3 SCC 220, where only three candidates",,,,,,,

were selected while others were ruled out despite there being vacancies. This Court doubted the decision in K. Manjusree (2008) 3 SCC 512 and,,,,,,,

referred the matter to a larger bench. Some of the observations were as under: -,,,,,,,

“1. Leave granted.,,,,,,,

“5. … the rules of the game … the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of,,,,,,,

selection has commenced.â€​,,,,,,,

“27. … changing the rules of the game after the game was played … is clearly impermissible.â€​,,,,,,,

The above, and statements to the similar effect have petrified into a rule of law in the context of employment under the State or its instrumentalities.",,,,,,,

Whether such principle of law is immutable, what are those “rules of the game†which cannot be changed after the game is either commenced or",,,,,,,

played, in our opinion requires an authoritative pronouncement by a larger Bench of this Court.â€​",,,,,,,

… … …,,,,,,,

6. Therefore, the appellants challenged the selection process on the ground that the decision of the Chief Justice to select only those candidates who",,,,,,,

secured a minimum of 75% marks would amount to “changing the rules of the game after the game is playedâ€â€"a cliché whose true purport is,,,,,,,

required to be examined notwithstanding the declaration of this Court in Manjusree (2008) 3 SCC 512 case that it is “clearly impermissibleâ€​.,,,,,,,

… ……,,,,,,,

14. Unfortunately, the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha21 does not appear to have been brought to the notice of Their Lordships in Manjusree",,,,,,,

(2008) 3 SCC 512. This Court in Manjusree relied upon P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India23, Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India24 and",,,,,,,

Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa (1987) 4 SCC 646. In none of the cases, was the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha21 considered.",,,,,,,

15. No doubt it is a salutary principle not to permit the State or its instrumentalities to tinker with the “rules of the game†insofar as the,,,,,,,

prescription of eligibility criteria is concerned as was done in C. Channabasavaih v. State of Mysore AIR 1965 SC 1293, etc. in order to avoid",,,,,,,

manipulation of the recruitment process and its results. Whether such a principle should be applied in the context of the “rules of the gameâ€,,,,,,,

stipulating the procedure for selection more particularly when the change sought is to impose a more rigorous scrutiny for selection requires an,,,,,,,

authoritative pronouncement of a larger Bench of this Court. We, therefore, order that the matter be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of",,,,,,,

India for appropriate orders in this regard.â€​,,,,,,,

F] In Yogesh Yadav (2013) 14 SCC 623, the attempt on part of the authorities in employing a cut off to select the best candidates was questioned. A",,,,,,,

bench of two Judges of this Court observed:-,,,,,,,

“13. The instant case is not a case where no minimum marks are prescribed for viva voce and this is sought to be done after the written test. As,,,,,,,

noted above, the instructions to the examinees provided that written test will carry 80% marks and 20% marks were assigned for the interview. It was",,,,,,,

also provided that candidates who secured minimum 50% marks in the general category and minimum 40% marks in the reserved categories in the,,,,,,,

written test would qualify for the interview. The entire selection was undertaken in accordance with the aforesaid criterion which was laid down at the,,,,,,,

time of recruitment process. After conducting the interview, marks of the written test and viva voce were to be added. However, since a benchmark",,,,,,,

was not stipulated for giving the appointment. What is done in the instant case is that a decision is taken to give appointments only to those persons,,,,,,,

who have secured 70% marks or above marks in the unreserved category and 65% or above marks in the reserved category. In the absence of any,,,,,,,

rule on this aspect in the first instance, this does not amount to changing the “rules of the gameâ€. The High Court has rightly held that it is not a",,,,,,,

situation where securing of minimum marks was introduced which was not stipulated in the advertisement, standard was fixed for the purpose of",,,,,,,

selection. Therefore, it is not a case of changing the rules of the game. On the contrary in the instant case a decision is taken to give appointment to",,,,,,,

only those who fulfilled the benchmark prescribed. The fixation of such a benchmark is permissible in law. This is an altogether different situation not,,,,,,,

covered by Hemani Malhotra case (2008) 7 SCC 11.â€​,,,,,,,

G] In Salam Samarjeet Singh vs. High Court of Manipur at Imphal and another (2016) 10 SCC 484, there was disagreement between two judges of",,,,,,,

this Court. Banumathi, J. did not accept the submission that the fixation of minimum marks for ‘interview’ amounted to changing the “rules",,,,,,,

of the game†and concluded that fixing of 40% marks for interview was consistent with the concerned Rules. Shiva Kirti Singh, J. took a different",,,,,,,

view while relying upon the decision in K. Majushree12 and Hemani Malhotra (2008) 7 SCC 11. The matter, therefore stands referred to a larger",,,,,,,

Bench.,,,,,,,

H] In Sivanandam C.T. and others vs. High Court of Kerala and others (2018) 1 SCC 239, while dealing with the correctness of the decision in fixing",,,,,,,

minimum qualifying marks for interview after the process was over, a bench of two judges of this Court relied upon the order in Tej Prakash Pathak",,,,,,,

(2013) 4 SCC 540 and referred the matter to a larger Bench.,,,,,,,

I] The facts in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Surender Singh and others (2019) 8 SCC 67 show that the selection was for the posts of Assistant,,,,,,,

Teachers (Primary) in the schools of the appellant and clause 25 of the advertisement provided discretion to the Selection Board to fix minimum,,,,,,,

qualifying marks for each category of vacancies. A bench of two judges of this Court observed:-,,,,,,,

“18. From a perusal of the said clause it is noticed that though under the very clause there are no cut-off marks specified, Clause 25 would,",,,,,,,

however, provide the full discretion to DSSSB to fix the minimum qualifying marks for selection. In the instant case, keeping in view that the",,,,,,,

recruitment was for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) and also taking note of the orders passed by the High Court in an earlier petition requiring,,,,,,,

the maintenance of minimum standards, DSSSB while preparing the select list had stopped the selection at a point which was indicated as the cut-off",,,,,,,

percentage. In a circumstance where Clause 25 was depicted in Advertisement No. 1/2006, when the private respondents herein and the other",,,,,,,

petitioners before the High Court were responding to the said advertisement, if at all they had a grievance that the clause is arbitrary and might affect",,,,,,,

their right ultimately since no minimum marks that is to be obtained have been indicated therein, they were required to assail the same at that stage.",,,,,,,

On the other hand, despite being aware of the clause providing discretion to DSSSB to fix the minimum qualifying marks, they have participated in the",,,,,,,

selection process by appearing for the qualifying examination without raising any protest. In that circumstance, the principle of approbate and",,,,,,,

reprobate would apply and the private respondents herein or any other candidate who participated in the process cannot be heard to complain in that,,,,,,,

regard.,,,,,,,

19. It is no doubt true that the select list was concluded at the particular cut-off point wherein the last selected candidate under the unreserved,,,,,,,

category had obtained 89.25%. The said decision had been taken by DSSSB to ensure the minimum standard of the teachers that would be recruited,,,,,,,

and the appellant herein being the recruiting agency in any event, did not have objection. In any event, it is not the case of the petitioners that they had",,,,,,,

obtained higher marks than the candidate who was shown as the last candidate in the merit list. If that was the position and when it is noticed that the,,,,,,,

appellant and the other writ petitioners had secured lesser percentage of marks than the last candidate included in the merit list, there could not have",,,,,,,

been any further consideration whatsoever in the course of judicial review. To that extent, the learned Single Judge, from the observations as noticed",,,,,,,

above has kept in view all aspects of the matter and in that light had arrived at the conclusion that no error was committed either by DSSSB or the,,,,,,,

appellant herein.â€​,,,,,,,

(Emphasis supplied),,,,,,,

J] In Jharkhand Public Service Commission vs. Manoj Kumar Gupta and another (2020) 1 SCALE 504, the cut off in respect of Paper III was fixed",,,,,,,

after the examination. Reversing the decision of the High Court, a bench of two Judges of this Court observed:-",,,,,,,

“7. A perusal of Clause 4.1 of the scheme clearly indicates that the moderation committee has been constituted only for the purpose of deciding the,,,,,,,

cut-off marks in each subject for declaring the result. The advertisement clearly indicates that only those candidates who obtained 50% marks in,,,,,,,

Paper I and II would be eligible to take the test in Paper III. The minimum qualifying marks in case of General/OBC candidates was 50%. At this,,,,,,,

stage, there was no need to fix the qualifying marks for Paper III. That need will arise only when the moderation committee meets and decides what",,,,,,,

should be the level of competence expected from the people who are to be considered for appointment as Lecturers. It is for the moderation,,,,,,,

committee to decide what should be the cut-off marks. There could be the subject where all the people who qualified Paper I and II get very low,,,,,,,

marks in Paper III and the moderation committee may be justified in lowering the standards and prescribing lower qualifying standards. On the other,,,,,,,

hand, there may be a subject where there are many candidates who do extremely well in Paper III and the moderation committee may decide to fix a",,,,,,,

higher minimum standard. The constitution of a moderation committee is normally done only to do this sort of moderation.,,,,,,,

8. As far as the finding of the High Court that the rules of the game were changed after the selection process had started, we are of the considered",,,,,,,

view that this is not the case as far as the present case is concerned. There were no minimum marks provided for Paper III in the advertisement. This,,,,,,,

could be done by the moderation committee even at a later stage. This is not a change brought about but an additional aspect brought in while,,,,,,,

determining the merit of the candidates who are found fit to be eligible for consideration for appointment of Lecturers.â€​,,,,,,,

59. Having set out relevant portions from the decisions of this Court, the answer to the second question will depend upon whether the present case is",,,,,,,

fully covered by the principles laid down in K. Manjusree (2008) 3 SCC 512. If the case is so covered, in keeping with the Orders of reference in Tej",,,,,,,

Prakash Pathak28, Salam Samarjeet Singh30 and Sivanandam31, the instant matter must either be referred to a larger Bench to be heard along with",,,,,,,

those matters or must await the decision in the reference to the larger Bench.,,,,,,,

60. In terms of Rule 2(1)(x) of 1981 Rules, qualifying marks of ATRE are such minimum marks as may be determined ‘from time to time’ by",,,,,,,

the Government. Clause (C) of Rule 14 of 1981 Rules lays down that a candidate must have ‘passed Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination,,,,,,,

conducted by the Government’. Thus, one of the basic requirements for being considered to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher under 1981",,,,,,,

Rules is passing of ATRE with such minimum marks as may be determined by the Government. Unlike para 7 of the Guidelines for ATRE-2018,,,,,,,

which had spelt out that a candidate must secure minimum of 45% or 40% marks (for ‘general’ and ‘reserved’ categories respectively),,,,,,,

for passing ATRE-2018, no such stipulation was available in G.O. dated 01.12.2018 notifying ATRE-2019. Though, the minimum qualifying marks",,,,,,,

were set out in the Guidelines for ATRE-2018, it is not the requirement of 1981 Rules that such stipulation must be part of the instrument notifying",,,,,,,

ATRE. By very nature of entrustment, the Government is empowered to lay down minimum marks ‘from time to time’. If this power is taken to",,,,,,,

be conditioned with the requirement that the stipulation must be part of the instrument notifying the examination, then there was no such stipulation for",,,,,,,

ATRE-2019. Such reading of the rules will lead to somewhat illogical consequences. On one hand, the relevant Rule requires passing of ATRE while,",,,,,,,

on the other hand, there would be no minimum qualifying marks prescribed. A reasonable construction on the relevant rules would therefore imply that",,,,,,,

the Government must be said to be having power to lay down such minimum qualifying marks not exactly alongside instrument notifying the,,,,,,,

examination but at such other reasonable time as well. In that case, the further question would be at what stage can such minimum qualifying marks",,,,,,,

be determined and whether by necessity such minimum qualifying marks must be declared well before the examination.,,,,,,,

61. K. Manjusree (2008) 3 SCC 512 and Hemani Malhotra (2008) 7 SCC 11 were the cases which pertained to selections undertaken to fill up posts,,,,,,,

in judicial service. In these cases, no minimum qualifying marks in interview were required and the merit list was to be determined going by the",,,,,,,

aggregate of marks secured by a candidate in the written examination and the oral examination. By virtue of stipulation of minimum qualifying marks,,,,,,,

for interview, certain candidates, who otherwise, going by their aggregate would have been in zone of selection, found themselves to be disqualified.",,,,,,,

The stipulation of minimum qualifying marks having come for the first time and after the selection process was underway or through, this Court found",,,,,,,

such exercise to be impermissible.,,,,,,,

These were cases where, to begin with, there was no stipulation of any minimum qualifying marks for interview. On the other hand, in the present",,,,,,,

case, the requirement in terms of Rule 2(1)(x) read with Rule 14 is that the minimum qualifying marks as stipulated by the Government must be",,,,,,,

obtained by a candidate to be considered eligible for selection as Assistant Teacher. It was thus always contemplated that there would be some,,,,,,,

minimum qualifying marks. What was done by the Government by virtue of its orders dated 07.01.2019 was to fix the quantum or number of such,,,,,,,

minimum qualifying marks. Therefore, unlike the cases covered by the decision of this Court in K. Manjusree (2008) 3 SCC 512, where a candidate",,,,,,,

could reasonably assume that there was no stipulation regarding minimum qualifying marks for interview, and that the aggregate of marks in written",,,,,,,

and oral examination must constitute the basis on which merit would be determined, no such situation was present in the instant case. The candidate",,,,,,,

had to pass ATRE-2019 and he must be taken to have known that there would be fixation of some minimum qualifying marks for clearing ATRE-,,,,,,,

2019.,,,,,,,

Therefore, there is fundamental distinction between the principle laid down in K. Manjusree (2008) 3 SCC 512 and followed in Hemani Malhotra",,,,,,,

(2008) 7 SCC 11 on one hand and the situation in the present case on the other.,,,,,,,

62. We are then left with the question whether prescription of such minimum qualifying marks by order dated 07.01.2019 must be set aside merely,,,,,,,

because such prescription was done after the examination was conducted. At this juncture, it may be relevant to note that the basic prayer made in",,,,,,,

the leading Writ Petition before the single Judge was to set aside the order dated 07.01.2019. What could then entail as a consequence is that there,,,,,,,

would be no minimum qualifying marks for ATRE-2019, which would run counter to the mandate of Rule 2(1)(x) read with Clause (C) of Rule 14. It",,,,,,,

is precisely for this reason that what was submitted was that the same norm as was available for ATRE-2018 must be adopted for ATRE-2019. In,,,,,,,

order to lend force to this submission, it was argued that Shiksha Mitras who appeared in ATRE-2018 and ATRE-2019 formed a homogeneous clause",,,,,,,

and, therefore, the norm that was available in ATRE-2018 must be applied. This argument, on the basis of homogeneity, has already been dealt with",,,,,,,

and rejected.,,,,,,,

63. If the Government has the power to fix minimum qualifying marks ‘from time to time’, there is nothing in the Rules which can detract from",,,,,,,

the exercise of such power even after the examination is over, provided the exercise of such power is not actuated by any malice or ill will and is in",,,,,,,

furtherance of the object of finding the best available talent.,,,,,,,

In that respect, the instant matter is fully covered by the decisions of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Surender Singh (2019) 8 SCC 67",,,,,,,

and Jharkhand Public Service Commission vs. Manoj Kumar Gupta and another (2020) 1 SCALE 504. In the first case, the power entrusted under",,,,,,,

Clause 25 of the advertisement also provided similar discretion to the Selection Board to fix minimum qualifying marks for each category of vacancies.,,,,,,,

While construing the exercise of such power, it was found by this Court that it was done ‘to ensure the minimum standard of the teachers that",,,,,,,

would be recruited’. Similarly, in Jharkhand Public Service Commission (2020) 1 SCALE 504, the exercise of power after the examination in",,,,,,,

paper III was over, was found to be correct and justified.",,,,,,,

64. If the ultimate object is to select the best available talent and there is a power to fix the minimum qualifying marks, in keeping with the law laid",,,,,,,

down by this Court in State of Haryana vs. Subash Chander Marwaha and Others (1974) 3 SCC 220, State of U.P. vs. Rafiquddin and Others 1987",,,,,,,

(Supp) SCC 401, Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Surender Singh (2019) 8 SCC 67 and Jharkhand Public Service Commission vs. Manoj Kumar",,,,,,,

Gupta and another (2020) 1 SCALE 504, we do not find any illegality or impropriety in fixation of cut off at 65-60% vide order dated 07.01.2019. The",,,,,,,

facts on record indicate that even with this cut off the number of qualified candidates is more than twice the number of vacancies available.,,,,,,,

It must be accepted that after considering the nature and difficulty level of examination, the number of candidates who appeared, the concerned",,,,,,,

authorities have the requisite power to select a criteria which may enable getting the best available teachers. Such endeavour will certainly be,,,,,,,

consistent with the objectives under the RTE Act.,,,,,,,

65. In the circumstances, we affirm the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court and conclude that in the present case, the fixation of cut",,,,,,,

off at 65-60%, even after the examination was over, cannot be said to be impermissible. In our considered view, the Government was well within its",,,,,,,

rights to fix such cut off.,,,,,,,

66. Consequently, the challenge at the instance of Shiksha Mitras in all these matters, specifically referred to in Para 27 hereinabove, is negated and",,,,,,,

the appeals preferred by Shiksha Mitras are dismissed.,,,,,,,

The appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.6846 of 2020 preferred by the Association of Shiksha Mitras also prayed for absorption of Shiksha Mitras. Such,,,,,,,

a prayer cannot be granted in view of the pronouncement of the decision of this Court in Anand Kumar Yadav (2018) 13 SCC 560. Said appeal is,",,,,,,,

therefore, dismissed.",,,,,,,

67. Though we have rejected the challenge on behalf of the Shiksha Mitras and dismissed their appeals, we hope that in keeping with the submissions",,,,,,,

made on behalf of the State, as recorded in paragraph 34 hereinabove, one more opportunity shall be afforded to Shiksha Mitras to compete in the",,,,,,,

next selection. We leave it to the discretion of the State Government to consider the manner and the modalities in which such opportunity can be,,,,,,,

availed of. Needless to say, the matter in that behalf is entirely left to the discretion of the State Government.",,,,,,,

68. In the appeals preferred by ex-servicemen or persons with disability, it was submitted that as against the vacancies earmarked for these",,,,,,,

categories, very few candidates had applied and at 65-60% cut off the number of qualified candidates was far lesser. The cut off at 65-60% having",,,,,,,

been held valid and justified, these appeals are also dismissed. If there are less number of candidates against the vacancies for these categories, such",,,,,,,

vacancies shall be subject to the Rules in that behalf. If the vacancies cannot be carried forward, the same shall and must enure to the advantage of",,,,,,,

the candidates in the present selection.,,,,,,,

Similarly, Writ Petition (Civil)No.703 of 2020 and appeals arising out of petitions preferred by B.Ed./B.T.C. candidates as well as Contempt Petition",,,,,,,

(Civil)No.413 of 2020 and all Intervention Applications also stand disposed of in same terms. No costs.,,,,,,,

69. The State Government shall now be entitled to fill up all the concerned posts in terms of the result declared on 12.05.2020 and in accordance with,,,,,,,

law.,,,,,,,